uh thank you everyone for joining us uh the Berto review board currently does not have an appointed chair so I will just in to vote for acting chair does anyone on the board want to make a nomination for acting chair today yeah yeah I nominate L Li masua as acting chair thank you board member lore is there a second okay second thank you board member Ellis uh how do you vote uh for nominating Le M as acting chair and I'm g go board member by board member uh board member Boyd in favor uh board member Ellis I board member Jacobs I board member ladimore I board member MATA in favor board member Nelson favor great I will now hand the meeting over to acting chair Matt great thank you Diana and as you've been saying to everyone happy Earth Day um good afternoon I'm calling this public hearing to order at 4:36 PM uh in accordance with the building emissions reduction and disclosure ordinance regulations adopted pursuant to the building emissions reduction or dis uh excuse me building emissions reduction and disclosure ordinance Boston city code ordinances section 7- 2.2 the Berto review board will hold a virtual public hearing at 4:30 p.m. on April 22nd to review the following topics in regards to the reduction of greenhouse gases um from building energy production and consumption so as to promote the Public Health and Welfare of Boston residents uh in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law we are conducting public meeting online um 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 comment and so to do so please raise your hand or type in the chat uh in the application via the zoom meeting platform if you're calling in and you cannot use the platform you can raise your hand by pressing star n um you can also send your questions to staff um via email at Berto reviewboard boston.gov um so for the record I am Lee matsua acting chair of the board I'll now conduct a roll call of board members board members just please say your name in order that they appear on the slide Rita boy oh sorry didn't realize uh counselor had joined my apologies um stepen Ellis levette Jacobs yeah ladimore liont Jack Nelson and just in the nick of time Matt om Ali welcome thanks everybody sorry I'm late great we got a full full board in in attendance thank you and uh now staff is going to go ahead and introduce themselves Hannah Payne environment department and Isaac sah Vasquez uh environment Department zi chin environment Department great all right everyone so uh here is our agenda for today's meeting um we will as always start with the approval of meeting minutes um then the environment Department staff will present some updates on the Equitable emissions investment fund and item number two um they'll provide some administrative up States um well also I'm sorry we'll also do some update discussion on the hardship compliance plan application guide um and then we'll do some administrative updates and of course adjourn um so let's take a quick look at our meeting minutes from our last meeting uh earlier this month I think it was on the 8th um first on the agenda to approve our previous meeting minute minutes um before we take a vote are there any just questions or comments regarding the meeting minute okay hearing none again appreciate the team for getting this all down I think a lot of good detail in there um any other just questions or comments before we move to a vote okay is there a motion to app the minutes who Moved oh thank you uh so um all uh board members in favor you can say I or or raise your hands I I any uh abstain I Ste and any opposed please say nay okay I think our uh meeting minutes have passed so we'll make sure we will share that the public um online thank you all right let's move to our second agenda item so we're gonna pick up where we kind of left off at our last uh meeting we were discussing the Equitable emissions investment fund um and so I think the at that time the environment Department had presented two options um to distribute the funds for the first application cycle which we're trying to get off the ground this this year summer um so I think Hannah I'm gonna pass it off to you to get us going great so um just to kick things off I wanted to share um some information about additional funding streams that are available in the like building decarbonization landscape right now now just for context that um as we're thinking about um the Equitable emissions investment fund so a few things to note um the city of Boston was awarded um just about $660,000 from the Department of energy for the ener Energy Efficiency and conservation block grant program um so we are planning to use this funding to support underresourced Berto buildings in creating um getting technical assistance um to create zero overtime plans and decarbonization strategies and as well as more detailed scopes of work for engineering so really the planning and scoping um things that we've talked about in with this board um we're looking to fund that work with the EBG funding it is it will go quickly CU it is um just $660,000 so we can do a good number of plans but um so there's certainly room for more of that kind of work but that's something that we're looking to um we just got the approval from Council and are working on the procurement process for that so we would be doing an RFP process um for for that work um also through um the mayor's office of housing they have offered uh several um deep energy retrofit programs um we've highlighted the ones for large buildings here they have another one for small buildings um but the large building programs cover Berto buildings that's why we're talking about that here this is with um arpa money um so the recovery money from covid um so federal funds again and they have a large Building green energy retrofit program that offers up to $10,000 for technical assistance um to evaluate um decarbonization plans and then they also have um a a larger Pro uh pot of funding for deep energy retrofits and so that's offering up to $50,000 per unit for the actual work in affordable housing um and so those have they've funded a number of uh program projects already um and I don't I don't recall right now off the top of my head if they have more applications open I know they are reviewing additional applications for those programs right now but that's for deed restricted affordable housing um also in the affordable housing space the state has um affordable housing deep energy retrofit grant program um and that will provide funds to deep energy retrofits and Energy Efficiency upgrades electrification and renewable Generation Um in affordable housing across the state so there's another set of funds at the state level for um deed restricted affordable housing and then the Massachusetts clean energy center has a um pilot program um that is called the beta program um and they have this for both commercial buildings and nonprofit buildings so these are pilots where they're providing um in-depth building audits to support commercial and nonprofit building owners and planning electrification decarbonization retrofits so again on the like planning and scoping side of the work um I believe I I think their applications closed for at least the commercial very recently or they're closing soon um so again that's Statewide so there is um so sharing these for like context that there's some funding out there for scoping um already um however I think there's a demonstrated need for more I know that mass CC has gotten a lot of interest in their program and more than they've been able to fully support sorry um and um um so and then there's like the specifics for INB building work have been primarily in the affordable housing space to date um so those are um kind of the the key updates on on just for your own context of where some of the funding is now um I'll pass it over to Diana to kind of go over some of the next things on the fund side but happy to try to answer questions about those those programs um maybe it makes a sense if if there are just some questions for Hannah quickly on on these um I appreciate you pulling these together thank you um if there are any just quick questions on this before we move on to Diana maybe we could take that I already see a couple hands so um why don't we go with uh board member Latimore and then board member alsis thank you uh chair AC chair um yeah thanks this is helpful I mean I think that um you know cman at least knows of some of these resources but curious a couple things one is um how much is in the pot for the large uh total pot for the large um Building green energy resit program do you know for the mayor's office of housing I believe it was 10 million for the large buildings have to double check but great and these resources and slides are available to the broader public right yep yes okay thank you that's it thanks board m l go ahead board member Ellis thank you chair uh Hannah thank you for sharing these resources I I'm just wondering because I I'm looking at this list and I was almost certain that some of these programs their applications have already passed or are passing um and so do you have any insight on whether or not these programs will be offered uh in in the next cycle uh and the rationale for my question is that as we open up the the application period for the emission investment funds and we want to provide feedback to the community let's say if we're unable to fund them please consider one of these sources that are listed here uh if it's not available then it may need to be pulled off this list so I'm just curious would it be offered in the in a in a second cycle so to speak or additional yeah thanks for that question so um the Energy Efficiency conservation block grant is a one-time Grant from the Department of energy they have run that program in the past but don't have any indications that that there is additional funding planned um as well as the arpa money for the mayor's office of housing that is a one-time investment so again that's a a one-time program and you correct that that program um there have been application cycles that have closed and so I think we're waiting to see if they're going to spend all of the money or have additional funds for more future application rounds um I don't know about the mass Massachusetts um decarbonized affordable housing program I'm don't I'm just not as familiar with the specifics there and then the mass Clean Energy Center Beta Pilots again I think this is a pilot um but I my understanding is that they're looking for additional funding to help expand those technical uh assistance programs that they're able to offer um so there is not I will say there is not a like ongoing confirmed funding source for this kind of work that we can count on year over-year that I'm aware of thank you that's helpful to know great thanks for Mar Alis any other uh questions or or comments about about these okay um thank you again Hannah um Diana I think are you are up next yeah um I just wanted to kind of provide some updates from the last meeting so during the last review board hearing there seem to be consensus around expanding or extending the deadline for the survey on the fund so we have extended the deadline till the end of the month April 30th at 5: PM is the new deadline um for any feedback regarding the fund uh We've shared or we've kind of shared the update of the deadline via our our usual channel so the Berto newsletter uh the Berto review board newsletter um and we've also shared it with the chairs of the commercial and Healthcare working groups uh and I'm sure I know they are reaching out to the members to let them know about this and hopefully receive some some feedback uh and I and during the last meeting there was there also seemed to be consensus around having like drafted language to share the fund opportunity or the feedback opportunity um so we also drafted that and shared that as well uh with the board and the chairs of the working groups um so yes thank you for your help and expanding and sharing the survey far and wide uh so far we've had nine responses in the survey itself and we have received some emails from Ace members um I I think we wait till the end of the month maybe to summarize all of the feedback we received and we have gotten some feedback um I also wanted to just quickly review what was discussed in the last meeting uh what we're calling like option one and option two for moving oh yeah sorry just quick question about the um feedback so far through the survey are those nine additional or nine total I I think we had four or something last time we met um oh is total number of surveys nine total thanks uh I also yeah wanted to review kind of what was shared during our last last hearing so uh it seemed after discussing with both budget and legal uh they recommended sort of like two potential Pathways for unrolling the first uh Grant application cycle for the Equitable emissions investment fund because uh the fund was seated with uh money from the operating budget there are some state legal requirements that we have to to be uh cognizant of at the first round and so option one is what we call the grant agreement approach so nonprofit organizations that provide Building decarbonization Services applied to the fund directly uh and in this approach any build any type of building owners eligible to receive the services from the nonprofit but the nonprofit would be the entity applying to the fund they would be the grantee um and services can Encompass any project stage so it can be anywhere from technical assistance and planning to the actual implementation um so actual you know physical changes option two is procuring a service so rather than a grant agreement it's actually like hiring um a consultant or a service provider uh and this in this situation or scenario the review board would secure a contract um and the vendor could be private or nonprofits uh and the review board has a little bit more control over who are the ultimate recipients of the services of the contract um and but no physical Trea can be done in private buildings um so just like a a recap of kind of what was discussed in the last meeting so the team wanted to just propose something to the board um as an initial proposal for discussion and of course hear reactions from the board and hear you know if this just like a gut check so we our initial proposal is that the review board release up to 700 $50,000 for the first application cycle uh as a grant agreement so option one are rationale is that it would allow the review board uh first scope out the number of nonprofits that kind of do this type of service I know that was a big question in our last meeting was are there that many nonprofits that actually do this um I think this could be a way a good way to just kind of learn about even programs that we don't know about that may be doing this kind of work or who may be working creatively in the decarbonization space um it also allows time for the review board and the Berto team to learn from the ecbg granting but also um all the other granting funds that's happening and identify gaps that appear and if it turns out that there is like a really big need there's the review board could then also develop next steps such as initiating a procurement process later this year if if there was um interest in doing that there's so if we opened up the gr agreement this you know earlier this year and it turns out there's a lot of need we could then initiate a procurement process later this year as well um and so for proposed application timeline to our initial proposal uh we recommend opening the fund the application cycle in June or July so the next couple months um with with the stipulation or just a reminder that there are other upcoming deadlines so July 1 is the deadline for long-term hardship compliance plans September 1st is the deadline for building portfolio individual compliance plans sched individual compliance schedules applications and October 1st is the deadline for short-term hardship compliance plans um and then just a reminder that the regulations do state any application for the fund needs to be open at least 30 days um for submission so if we were to open an application in June and July just keeping in mind that there days it would have to be open for at least 30 days um so that folks can have a time to apply for the pl and then I just wanted to also include this uh estimated timeline for a request for proposal process so the city has very specific um procurement processes that uh we would have to follow and so if we were to pursue the Contracting a service uh the estimated timeline we have is is about three months um for the city procurement process I won't go super in depth with each step but this is kind of like the steps that we'd have to go through um so keeping that in mind as well that it may take about three months to get the city to procure a service and then as that is happening we would also need to establish an application process for interested parties and have us assistant for the review board and then vote on the projects that have received the services um should we pursue Contracting with a service provider um want to provide that context yeah okay and that was all I had so I'll pass the back to you chair great thanks Sana yeah I mean um helpful to have a proposal I think for discussion I know I know there was support for the second option uh a number of board members showed in our last meeting um I I I think you know the goal is here if we can make a decision today that's great um and if it doesn't work out that way and we have more questions or alternate proposal I think that's okay too we can do some reworking of that but we have to I think Make it try to make a decision um no later than our next meeting so um I think that's uh important to kind of note um but I guess what we can we can do are a couple rounds of uh questions or comments by members of the board um we will also have um a public comment period um on this as well so in any case um yeah would love to just let's let's just start I I'll just start with uh our board members see if um you all just have any comments or questions um it could be about the proposal uh that staff have offered I think that would be productive for us to kind of talk through your perspective or your questions on that um and if you have other other ideas as well but I would say let's start maybe with a round of comments or questions regarding the proposal and uh and then we can kind of uh Branch out from there so I will start with U board member Boyd uh any comments or questions um regarding some this application that's up on the slide right now so I'm looking at I'm looking at the U potential options for the EI if that's what I have a question about about option one so this the second bullet it says any type of building owner is El is eligible to receive the services from the nonprofit correct okay and then no I don't have a question just let let me brainstorm a little bit yeah of course we can Circle back uh boy member Boyd and um if there's something else that comes to you out we'll bring it back to you okay uh let's let's go to um counselor Keta any comments or just feedback or questions regarding uh this the proposal that kind of staff is kind of um put before us thank you so much chair and thank you to the staff that's put this all together and for your your dedication and hard work can you go back to the slide that Rashida uh had had mentioned or member um Boyd okay I do remember last time and again this is my second time here and I I I I do have a lot to learn um I was more partial in the beginning of the conversation to the first option giving and empowering local nonprofits with this fund and building their capacity as a way of of um just dispersing funds equitably and and I think that I that's where I still am at um and I'm happy to hear that that's the approach that you all want to take although in conversation I do remember that the spirit of this ordinance really was to go through second option two and um you know I I do see some value in that I think the a downside if I'm making a pro and con list and articulating it for everybody is that through the procurement option we would also have to follow state law which requires us to if if there's not enough um participants or if somebody if we don't get enough folks that are inquiring about it we have to restart the process does that sound about right to the staff I know we didn't get into it but that's my knowledge of pro of the uh procurement laws that we have to abide by yeah that's a good question I don't know if hanas in we would have to follow the state procurement laws that is correct I have not no you are you there there Hannah did we lose you that's okay I can I can always look this up too I can always do my own Google search and figure it out but yeah my understanding is that if we don't get x amount of participants or or people that I keep saying participants but x amount of people that are replying to this and and interested then we have to restart the process all over again um so that's that that's a downside and I'm just letting folks know I am so partial to option one um but would love to chime in in in the later half of this conversation and let other board members um say their their opinion as well great thank you councelor K yeah um I I had some similar questions about the the procurement process um in any case so let's uh go to board member Ellis please thank you chair and so I must admit I'm planing a bit of catchup for missing our last uh board member meeting so clearly a lot was discussed uh during that time so um di I have a few questions I hope we can get through this uh and hopefully it won't take too long but um can you remind me what is the seated amount of money in the pool right now I'm going to start with that yes so the seated amount was 3.5 million 3.5 million okay thank you all right so I looking at option one uh I am slightly concerned that it seems that if we're going in this direction we would just be giving a nonprofit the the fundings and so we'll be Shifting the responsibilities of valuating projects over to them is that correct am I interpreting that correctly yes so yeah in the yeah in option one uh the the grant agreement approach I suppose is sort of uh providing money to a nonprofit to bolster they like their already existing programming and that probably already that would include like finding the projects that work for them the one I would add for option one is that in the grant agreement or in the Grant application posting um we could provide stipulations for the services so we could say like the services have to be done in environmental justice populations they have to prioritize XYZ like those types of things can be added into the gr uh ad or like the the gr application um but yes ultimately the nonprofit would have the the say of how the the work gets done that makees sense okay thank you that's helpful I you know so long as we're providing enough criteria because it it does seem like uh when I saw option one it it threw me for a slight Loop for a moment because I from joining this board it always seems like option two was the direction that we would have to sort of get ourselves prepared for so I look forward to the conversation on what it means to to setting up those guidelines with respects a nonprofit now is this limited to only Boston nonprofits no uh we could make a stipulation that the project like the work itself has to be done in in Boston but the nonprofits do not have to be uh limited to to Boston okay not a problem I would just sorry I would just clarify that the the work that is covered by the eif would have to be in Boston to meet the are fund requirements but the nonprofit could be based elsewhere doing work in Boston got it not a problem I just wanted to make sure that if it's Boston money and it needed to be provided to Boston nonprofits I I would admit that I have a concern that there are enough nonprofits that are ready to take on uh this scope of work and so is my understanding with this option one uh and that one month is attractive I I'll admit that you know anything that can get this process started sooner but with the one month month option the recommendation I think it's on the next slide that we release what was it $750,000 is that correct and is that I um that's not a lot of money so is that per nonprofit or is that for a is that a pool for nonprofits I'm just trying to understand what I'm reading here uh that was sorry did you want that was total um our thinking being we don't totally know what this is going to look like um and wanting to I think balancing if you know future alternative compliance payments are what are going to fund the Equitable emission investment fund uh at the earliest 2026 would be the year that uh acps would be made and so how do we make the the current pool uh sustainable for next year as well 2025 um and have enough money for buildings who maybe are not as prepared this year um and maybe will be some help next year in 2025 so it was just a an initial like what do y'all think about this because we're also trying to balance like how do we make sure it there's enough money to also do another fund of application another round of applications next year okay so reason I'm asking about this amount is uh in previous board meetings the board seems to have a large interest in making sure that scope scoping projects were available so I'm assuming you know is this where we're placing criteria where the nonprofit would have to be funding scoping part so I I think that's where I'm you know again I'm I'm here throwing wrenches in conversation that may have already happened last week but I am sitting here reflecting on you know is that enough money yes 20% of the entire pool scoping work requires a lot of money and so I I I not sure if that amount is the amount that I would I I would I would suggest going towards uh so I'm going to pause on the option one and now let's quickly jump to option two [Laughter] sorry um I forgive me I may be misreading this language but can you explain under last bullet point under option two what does no physical changes can be done in a private building mean I I I might be reading this in in a strange way yeah so when we presented this we kind of presented them like in the stages of a project so like Discovery phase being you know we were doing engineering design or sorry stage one is uh exploring researching building stage two being engineering designing um doing everything up until the actual work itself and then stage three being the implementation the physical changes so is it the installation of the heat pump system is it the like preparing uh adding uh switching fossil fuels to Electric in the building so like those types of physical changes uh or is what is what we mean by that okay so if a maybe I'm still confused so if a project or a say any entity receives a funding from an RFP process and they've determined that this building requires a ground Source heat pump you're essentially saying that the money cannot be spent on that ground Source heat pump is that correct is that what I'm understanding uh correct so the money can be used for technical assistance so re reviewing the building researching the options reviewing um like rebates and and different Financial uh incentives it can be used for up to basically everything the planning up until the ground Source heat pump work is actually done okay so physical only in a building but not physical in terms of a community project for example that if the city was if we were to say the city has put together an application to say bring together some sort of Community Choice electric to a community that's not physically in a building but it is supporting multiple buildings would that be excluded or would that be included if this is just hypothetical of course we would have to review that example with our Law Department but in short an RFP process that is of procurement is like um the city is going out to procure service for um work that is in line with city services and so that's why technical assistance is generally like would be okay in that scenario because those are services that the City offers and we're expanding that um with this ex with this additional funding um the issue comes into play with the anti-a amendment and Diane and I have tried to learn as much as we can but we are not the lawyers but on this but in general that in Massachusetts limit tax dollars from being spent to improve private properties um so it would be hard to um have this go towards through the RFP process or this funding go towards like installing the heat pump things like that there may be some cases where it's allowable but it would be a case by case basis okay and a better example would have been installing you know geothermal Wells throughout City properties that help support multiple buildings in in an area yeah so that's that um I don't think we' do this same kind of process for that but potentially that would [Music] be we have to think about that but I think that one would be more allowable because it's the key is we have to be providing a community benefit and um so that one potentially could be allowable but again would have to check with our Law Department thank you Hannah all right so wrapping up my side here thank you for allowing me to take as much time here to chair uh I from what I'm gathering option one seems to be the most flexible option and and the one that would be allow it would it would turn around rather quickly it it just seems that we as a board would have to go back to uh our evaluation spreadsheet and rather than be doing an evaluation spreadsheet for an RFP we would have to do an evaluation spreadsheet for for nonprofits is what I I'm sort of taking away from this and that option two is more in line with what we originally were sort of expecting with the ordinance but it's a timely process and there's a lot of legal requirements uh involved that's what I'm getting am I missing anything Diana I think that's right I think um the only other uh note I would add under option one is that option one uh implementation is allowable if it's part of a nonprofit's already like existing programming so if a nonprofit is already installing heat pumps and they use the money to bolster this program that they already have uh that can be done got it thank you uh and if I may add one more thing um the for the RFP option the scope option two um the other piece of that is we would have to write a detailed scope of work that vendors would then bid on so for that it can't be as open-ended so to your question around like geothermal we would have to put out a specific RFP where the scope of work is specifically that it couldn't be generally send us your projects on um you know decarbonization that serves environmental justice Community thank you Hannah all right chair I'll turn it back over to you thank you all right thank you uh board member I think it's important yeah we uh it's it's good review because I think we did go over some of this and um important to kind of think through I think multiple options here so let's go to uh board member Jacobs any comments or questions you have about um the proposal to kind of move forward with um option one 750 for the first cycle hey everybody I've been following along um I just want to say I've been reading and I'm still in favor of the first proposal and I'm super excited to see which direction we as a whole are going to take this that's going to be all very wor great thank you um board member Jacobs we'll do of course another round um and so if you other questions or comments come up um specific to this proposal or uh other parts of the the other option we can we can include that as well so uh board member ladimore yes thank you acting chair if can you go back to the option page again I just want to make sure I understand a couple of things so in terms of um option one and option two can you just tell me which one is you mentioned um Diana a a a procurement process that had to be prescribe a couple you takes three months is that the case for both option one and two or is is one a more expedited process then option two you have to procure uh a the non profit in the same way that you procure a direct service or is it do you understand what I'm asking yeah yeah so that that slide is is related to option two so this are like the these are the procurement steps that the city would have to take because in this example yeah the review board would be serving sort of as the city hiring a contractor so it's only for two that we have that lengthy time frame if we went for option one it wouldn't what would be the time frame for selecting it would be just like what a 4-week RFP process for some kind of um uh nonprofit to take on this work yeah if we were to go for option one um we would have to draft the uh you know like the grant agreement and the Grant application uh but they weren't they would it wouldn't be as prescribed as this uh as this list time frame for them submitting their responses as opposed to a regimented time frame for procurement process exactly okay and um in option um one if you go to that slide it says any type of owner is eligible to receive services from the nonprofit and I guess my comment and question there is but can we still as a not as a review board say we have a preference for a certain type or it has to be open to any type of building owner I guess where is the review board in this in that second bullet yeah that's a great question so in the Grant application or Grant posting I'm not sure what the right word is like in the in the posting that describes the granting opportunity uh the review board could include like projects you know we're looking to fund nonprofits that do decarbonization services in environmental justice communities we want to look we want to prioritize um you know XYZ it depends on on kind of what we're hoping to Target because because really the takeaway from my understanding of the antia amendment is that it there needs to be a public benefit but um there you know you can kind of add safeguards or railings to the to the granting opportunity that's helpful so it doesn't have to be open to just any building owner we can kind of you know do the targeting so to speak cor um thank you and then um so I guess the couple of quick comments about timing and then just a comment about the the pot of money available um in the second option if in order to go through that three-month procurement process sounds like you're going to open up the applications for the Equitable emissions Fund in June July this of this within the next month month month or two um but if we go through the procurement option two you you won't be able to make decisions for at least three or four months after you procure right so you you're holding people off until October November when they applied in June July to hear about whether or not they got money um so I guess that's a factor maybe it's quicker in option one uh for decision- making purposes so that's just a comment the only thing on the 750 I mean it is what it is we don't have a lot of money three three three and a half million is not a lot of money at all I we have we have like a um 150 1 unit property affordable housing property that has a $6.5 million decarbonization budget in and of itself right so this is the scale of what it takes to do this decarbonization work if you want to do it in a deep retrofit way so that 3.5 is always is it's minuscule compared to the need and I know that the city is doing as best it can and that's Le leads me to wonder about like it's almost like one half a dozen the other in terms of the amount that 750 um when I do the math based on our Codman Square DCS owned just to do the actual decarbonization plan for some of our buildings depending on how many units are in the building it can cost up to $440,000 $50,000 per building just to do the plan depending on how many units you know just to assess like how to go about decarbonizing so making me wonder is that 750 better spent on just the plans or either way is not going that far or is it spent on anything I guess it's just a I'm expressing what I've asked a couple of times before about we need to bring more money to the table to get this done well because that is just um it's a challenge so anyway those those are just my comments I guess I'm still for option one I guess but the more I think about it it's like 750 is the issue it's just not going to go far either way but there it is when it is thank you I'm done thanks board member lore I I actually that was a lot of where my head is at as well where you kind of ended your your comments uh I I feel um you know and maybe for that reason I am leaning towards uh definitely option option one um and helping people with with the planning and the assessment knowing that I think a lot of you know we were talking about fund options that Hannah presented earlier it's clear right the resources are they going to continue to be there uh maybe not right and so does feel like there have to be some other resources lined up and that not all of that has to come through this this board and this effort right so I am thinking of it in that way that I think um you know going to the the smaller relatively amounts for planning and assessment which still is a lot per building like the number you shared uh board member Latimore it it I I think that um we could still have an impact I think the thing I'm sitting with also goes back to our last conversation about you know how many organizations are there that can do this work and um I'm actually okay if it's a small smaller number of good organizations because it's a smaller pot of money and um and I I think what we're going to start to need to key in on um are these stipulations so for you know that we sort of we sort of name Are there specific things that we're looking for specific uh whatever buildings or communities that we want to make sure get those services so among those so I think I'm leaning in that direction um I you know the the conversation from last meeting is in my head about um the second option as well and um uh part of me is is thinking you know maybe we we take a shot with this uh this proposal some version of this uh with option one and um and that doesn't stop us from thinking and preparing and planning for a different cycle where we are talking about um uh the the other option right so um I I am interested in getting resources out and seeing uh what we can start to do um and with what else is on our calendar I feel like uh a shorter timeline uh serves us well given the hardship compliance uh efforts and and all the other applications that we're going to have to review later in the year so uh it's not the only reason but that's just in my mind so again I think I do support a version of this proposal and um and and I haven't gone there yet but I'm still thinking a lot about what are those stipulations that we might include I think that's the word we we've been talking about that um might further like sharpen kind of the focus of where those resources are are spent um okay I'm going to stop there and um I'll uh pass it to board member Nelson thank you um so and if we could go to that other page the one um that shows the both options thank you so we have a total of 3.5 million to spend through this year and next year uh yes so uh yeah 3.5 is seated um yeah until until that carries us through 25 yeah uh assuming in 2026 that we receive alternative statments I think that's the big question mark we're not quite sure how much we will receive right okay so um what what's preventing us from moving forward with both of these in parallel just starting option one and option two and deciding on an amount to um to distribute through both options at the same time to to give both options shot yeah if the that is an option I there's no reason the review couldn't do both in parallel um I guess for me personally maybe capacity but and thinking about the timelines that are coming up such as like the hardship application deadlines and the building portfolio deadlines that would just be my one like caveat is trying to balance uh what seems like what we think will be a lot of applications but we don't you know we just don't know for sure okay because the you know we identified in earlier meetings the board did that it's very important to do these studies and to get as many funds out there to do the studies and option two gives us the most flexibility to distribute those funds um towards um you know the types of buildings and um owners that need this money the most um so I in my mind it would be best to to move ahead with both if we can if we can do it in parallel I'm concerned with option one that there's not very many um entities out there that are not for profit that do this type of work I frankly don't know of any and I've been in this these circles for decades um so but we could if we elected to do that we could say maybe 750 in option one and 750 and two and S option two would strictly be technical assistance studies and and could we go out and and select um look for proposals from many different engineering companies or Planning Companies and then select three or four and then um ask those three or four to react to different or to pursue studies in different buildings throughout the city so I think the way we would need to do it if we're doing an RFP where we're selecting multiple vendors so again not a procurement expert uh for City procurement law but I think what we' want to do would be to separate out different scopes of work if we wanted to procure multiple vendors um so let's say we said you know one scope of work and pot of funding would be for um doing deurbanization studies in nonprofit buildings and then separate on so we hire a different firm to do Residential buildings I think would the easiest way to Divine that but we again with the RFP process we need to write a specific scope of work um because then the vendors bid with their technical application and their their price and that's the the city page understood because that would be very similar to what the utilities offer they offer technical assistance studies where they have a list of vendors that uh that have responded to rfps that they write and then when the um the rate payer or the building owner wants to do a study they recommend one of their five um ta study vendors um and then that vendor would do the work yeah and that's another very good point that we want this money to supplement the existing Mass save money for this work which is um there's often a cost share for commercial buildings for residential buildings they can get at least the most basic home energy assessment covered but often this work is much more in depth than that so we want to make sure that whatever we're proposing in either option is building on the services already provided by Mass Save um and so that our funding is supplemental and so could to to make this process easier couldn't we ask or collaborate with Mass Save and um prepare an RFP that was similar to what's already been done um we would definitely want to be collaborating with mass I think it would be slightly different what we're asking but some of the examples I shared like the mayor's office of housing program and the mass c um beta program uh work with mass safe so that their funding is complimentary and we would want to do a a similar approach with our program okay all right great really really good points um and uh and then I know just to point it out I don't know if you saw it Jack but Gail did sort of um suggest some potential nonprofits in the chat uh that might be able to take on this type of work so if you're curious I think those are groups that that might be able to do it we definitely talked about new ecology and maybe resident last meeting but um she also named some others um if you're curious looking at that um all right let's make sure uh board member Ali has an opportunity please uh uh share any comments or questions you might have yeah thank you Le uh first off thank you so much to the team for drafting the uh social media language relative to the survey I actually missed that email but I just checked s and have updated my LinkedIn so uh here here's to getting to double digits and responses uh in the next couple days uh I'll I'll do some followup as well um yeah I mean we've spent a lot of time on this and I I think you know what was helpful to me last week or last meeting was uh there were sort of pros and cons listed with both and if I have it right and I'm sort of paraphrasing here that that you know they're easy easy to see the pros and in in both situations the cons I want to focus on the con on option one uh was that it would limit the pool of potential uh service providers and more concerning to me it also would uh limit the control that this board would have we'd essentially I think it's you know I don't oversimplify but be sub subcontracting out what we're going to do um which is why I was and am more supportive of option two I think the biggest con that was associated with option two is that it would limit of course the scope of work to studies to sort of scoping out to some of those early early phases I'm okay with that just given the cost associated with that the fact that so many buildings are looking for that so I do see utility um having said that I think it's the you know I want to get consensus and I think that's something we all strive for I support the uh the Department's um you know Yan's work that you all are doing each and every day and I don't want us to sort of bite off more than we can choose to to in terms of how we implement this so I actually like limiting the amount to $750,000 I am fine to go forward with option one even though option two would be my preference it sounds to me that there's more support for option one and again I'm just just one voice um but I guess two two things sort of jumped out one I don't love the fact that there's no um residency requirement for these potential vendors uh we were very very intentional particularly with this review board to make sure that there was obviously a residency requirement but also to make sure that the nominating groups uh were local groups so that's just one thing that I want to raise I would assume that we would be able to choose the vendor so you're Notting your head Dian I have that correct so we we could we wouldn't make it a prerequisite we wouldn't add stipulations but certainly a a local based uh Boston based business could presumably receive more points on on their application is that correct for for option one yeah if if we were to if we afford with that option one sort of pilot for lack of a better word yeah um yes if the review board wanted you could say like we want Boston based uh not profit organizations and we would pick or would it the sort of the procurement office have to pick it How would how how would we select the vendor oh so the the grant agreement approach the review board has discretion over selected yeah yeah and again I'm not suggesting we tie our hands needlessly behind our back but I do you know just because that was raised I want to I would it's always my preference to support a Boston based business and then um I guess through that process we could work with whomever we choose as the vendor I'm saying this as a statement but it's a question so just picture question mark at the end of it we could work with the vendor to sort again set the stipulation on what we would like to sort of see you know prioritize environmental justice communities prioritize you know locally owned and operated type buildings we we could set those parameters in terms of whom they would serve and then we would I assume there'd be followup there'd be some oversight this is a this is maybe a less clear I'm probably not being too articulate as I'm explaining my concern my concern is that we'd just be subcontracting the cell and the review board would not be able to keep an eye uh and make sure that the uh funds are delivered in the way that we all I think agree and hope they would be so can you talk about a little bit about uh the oversight the board would still have if we were to go forward with option one and subcontract out these Services yeah so I can I can take that one so I think the best way to think about option one is a is a grant program so um this would be we would put out the review board would put out a call that says you know we're looking for a you know to support building decarbonization projects that serve environmental justice communities you could include what you're looking to prioritize but it's a bit more of an open-ended call that it can be um and then you could evaluate those responses and determine which nonprofit or nonprofits you would would want to fund and they would have the whatever their program that they're proposing would be um so in this case it would likely not be that you could say um you know that they would bring every single building to you that they're looking to work with to get preapproval um that likely wouldn't work very well um but it could be you know a nonprofit that is already working with lowincome building owners to do decarbonization projects and this funding would help bolster the work that they're already doing in Boston and they would use this work to expand the number of Boston buildings that they could support um within the grant agreement you could also stipulate regular check-ins reporting um and other things like that to make sure that they're staying on task and meeting the expectations of the board and is the thought that's helpful thank you Hannah is the thought that um I'm just going back to the sort of the the review board uh the initial proposal for discussion the review board released up to 750k for the first application cycle as a grant agreement is the thought that would go to one firm or we would we divy it up to multiple I think we could leave it open um I think this is something that we could um look into talk with our the team that's that works on a lot of these gr applications but I think that um I believe we could write it so that the review board could award one or more Awards up to a total of $750,000 kind of how we would propose it and then you could review the application based on criteria that you've set out um and determine whether you wanted to fund one project or uh several small projects I think part of the appeal of this option is we don't have a great understanding of um if there are you know many folks doing this work or if there are creative things already happening in the community that we could fund um and help just p through their work locally that they're already doing so I think we would be this should be an opportunity to learn a fair amount by putting this money out there um and seeing what kind of creative ideas we get back whereas option two the RFP process we would as the city and The View Board write a very detailed scope of work that would have to be met exactly yeah no I no I totally get that again I think I I think that's sort of more in the spirit of of what I'd like to see this board do and allow that sort of uh us to to sort of play a significant role working working with our partners um but again having said all that I am fine if it's the I would certainly support if it's the consensus of this board to uh take the the initial proposal um which would be option one uh capping it at 750k um I assume we'd be able to include stipulations like what the fee associated with whatever nonprofit couldn't exceed x% then we that's stuff I'd assume we could make clear as we're putting out the call for vendors right yeah perfect thank you sorry so yeah I'm fine to to go forward with this as long as it's you know we're not marrying this approach going forward but it would allow us to sort of re-evaluate things you know after the after 10 months or a year um to see if it makes sense for us to maybe switch switch gears um which I assume I assume it would be great thank thank you board member I was actually super helpful um to to kind of approach it that way you know given where we are and what time it is I I don't think we have to make our maybe we're not in the right place to make a decision right now it seems like there's clearly a leaning towards option one you know at the end of the comments though board member Nelson was you know put a different proposal out there around the sort of both option I am you know always sensitive to sort of the the capacity of our team to execute things give given the the sort of other uh amounts of work that we will have coming up soon on the calendar and so I think that's the main reason I I sort of choose one or the other but um I guess are other people in agreement that maybe we take uh a little bit more time into the next meeting to make this decision or are folks ready to go ahead and um and vote on this any strong feelings one way or the other and I I won't call on people just have a specific comment on on our process here um would love to know that but I think my recommendation is we we take until the next meeting and we make our decision in that in that meeting well M Mr chair if I may I I would I would love to know sort of the the the environment Department's team on this if they're anxious for us to take action again I'm I'm fully confident with with uh proceeding with option one um as long as you know we there it seems to me that it is clear that we could re-evaluate but if the environment team thinks we can wait two weeks then I I have no problem waiting either but don't don't don't delay a vote on my account I guess is what I'm saying sure if I may offer a proposal and Diana please jump in if you disagree with me but um one thing that I think our team could do is begin at least an outline of what a uh Grant application could look like by the next meeting so that you can have a little bit of a better sense of some of those parameters things that you could put in um to such a call for for um uh through a grant program um and then we can also take a closer look at um what it what it could mean to try to do option two at the same time probably not have as much flushed out but um we are working on similar procurement with the ony so um I can take a look at that and give an update on that as well I appreciate that Dan do you have any comments on that I feel like I would that seems like a good course of action but uh yeah I'm I'm happy to do that I think that makes sense as well I yeah um board member Latimore I I I'll you go and then I do also want to make sure if board member Boyd or if any of the others who didn't have a lot that they wanted to add earlier if there are other comments you'd like to make um uh we'll we'll make sure there's a little time after boore goes here well I'll see um for now to to to those two uh board members and go after them if they want if they have questions um I'm all right Bo I'm all right okay I'm actually getting my questions answered by y'all asking questions thank you great yeah of course board member boy and um board member was it you board member Jacobs I was just curious if there's any other comments or questions you have right now no not at the moment the dialogue was pretty much answered everything that I needed to know okay so it uh go ahead B lore and then we'll kind of try to sum up where where we think we are right here thank you yeah so I I I tend to agree with um councilor's comments about you know um the the process and you know if the staff feel ready that's fine with me also but if we're waiting um for that a little bit more analysis that was just discussed by the staff um then I would add to that um the cost for option one and option two meaning is there a different if is is there a differential in terms of the costs for hiring a nonprofit in option one versus you know what we have to pay to procure an entity or an option two I don't know if there's a way to sus that out but is there a differential in cost um for whoever we bring on board to do the work just just a comment and a question if there's a way to flush that out there that to me would be helpful I can sorry chair if it's okay if I me yeah please uh I know at least for option one so like the grant the grant ing route the grant agreement route um so for a grant agreement I believe this is part of the anti Amendment uh the funding would have so the full funding would have to go to the work of so the actual programming itself um I think I believe uh up to 10% can be used by the nonprofit for admin level type of um stuff for the program that the fund would be funding but uh in that case the fund would 100% go to the work of the am profit um with that okay so small percentage that could go in option one to the nonprofit right correct I think I think it's kept at 10% information I think could be helpful and what would it be for option two if we were procuring a comp you know just if there's a way to determine that that I am not as familiar with the procurement process yeah I I understand the question and I don't think that we would be able to determine that so through the procurement process um we do look at Price proposals as well um so it's something that can be evaluated but they would be putting in a bid a price bid for a specific scope of work so um I I think your question is more like do you get more bang for a Bo for a nonprofit versus uh private firm that may come in through the RFP process and I think the answer is maybe but we don't know and that likely the Scopes of work we'd be getting through the grant making process would be um slightly different than what we would necessarily write out in a prescriptive RFP process thank you all right so I think where we at is is we will um the staff has has has agreed to kind of help come back in our next meeting with a draft of the Grant application then that's where we can talk more specifically about specific types of stipulations or conditions that we want to make sure are there so that they're um the right resources are going to the right places um and uh and in addition that there could be some update provided about um the sort of procurement process uh that Hannah was kind of sharing and so we can start to kind of think a little bit about option two um I think we we're g to have to also make some decisions I don't know if we need to make the decision in the meeting about how many organizations there's probably words ways that we can make it flexible but that has come up um but we're going to have to probably agree on the amount um make sure we're clear on which option and if we're going with the grant uh uh piece that that we're starting to put that in motion and and have some some guidance that we can make sure we offer around the application process so I think um uh we should prepare to do that in our next meeting am I missing any other key chunks right now um again I do I do recognize that there's interest in the second um option and so I appreciate uh the staff being willing to kind of make sure we keep keep that conversation going uh no other chunks the only other thing I will I will note in terms of our depending on what we choose our theoretical timeline um it's also planning for outreach so once we have something open making sure we have enough time to you know provide info sessions or FAQs or whatever we think that makes the most sense to potential folks who may be interested yeah I think that would be also helpful is just um a general timeline that we could outline to include right the Outreach the you know our typical process around Grant applications and U and so forth and review so be helpful to also have a general timeline that we could pair with option one great all right I think um what I am going to recommend is that we actually just um go go ahead and see if there are any uh uh uh comments from the public and then we can uh quickly kind of try to get through our next and third agenda item so um let's uh I'm going to go ahead and um open this um meeting to public comment as a reminder to members of the public to provide public comment you can raise your hand or type in the chat the application via the zoom meeting platform if you're calling in and can't use that platform you can raise your hand by pressing star9 and uh you can also send your questions to staff via email at Berto reviewboard boston.gov um as a reminder we're just trying to keep things moving so um let's try to keep it to three minutes if we can please uh introduce yourself if there's an organization or particular neighborhood you represent I would appreciate that and um yeah if you are joining us please uh and you have a comment or question uh you can again please make yourself known I will uh pause for a moment and see if there's any public comments on uh this conversation we've been having here okay um we sure there's no no comments you're welcome to email folks uh on our staff we can put stuff in the chat or obviously um use your voice and come on come on Zoom okay uh hearing none I guess we will um close the public comment period uh again I appreciate um everyone just kind of um trying to stay engaged in this conversation around the the funds the first time kind of doing many of these things when we're going through them so I appreciate people's um attention and kind of uh thinking it through and and we will uh um make our decision in our next uh meeting coming up in a couple weeks um all right so let's go ahead and move to our third agenda item we're gonna kind of switch gears here discuss updates to the hardship compliance plan uh application guide that has been developed I think it went live on Friday is what I think Diana was saying to me and there are some ideas uh that just some updates that we need to share so Diana I will pass it to you thank you chair um and I just wanted to start by saying the content and the questions are all the same um based on the hardship compliance plan applications that were released earlier this year but based on some feedback that we received from folks who Shar that they were thinking about applying uh they just felt that there was some clarification that could be beneficial to the application so we updated the the application itself but the questions and the content are all the same um and so I just wanted to share some of the key updates so we made it clear about the format of the application so the application will resemble what we're calling like a report style application um with the title page so it's more of a proposal versus an application form that people may be more familiar with for like the building portfolio or the individual compliance schedule application will have so we try to make that more clear in in this updated version uh we also separated short-term and long-term applications so previously we had one application for hardship and then in that application you would distinguish if you're applying for shortterm or long term uh but we have separated them and try to make the short-term application a little bit more streamlined because if you're applying for shortterm um some of the questions in the long term maybe would be applicable to you anyway so we try to make that a little bit more clear uh we added an eligibility checklist um it made it more prominent so that folks can kind of see you know what exactly they're what we're asking of them um and try to make that kind of threaten Center we've added lots of clarifying instructions and an instructions page that really uh sets out the step by step or we're hoping it does um and then we did add a case summary section so this is just asking the applicant to highlight the hardship case that they're making to the board and having that be uh like a paragraph We I don't think more than a page um in the application so it's like a nice summary of their application and so a complete application would look like a title page an eligibility checklist that case summary the application body itself um and then of course the building owner signature or signature of um a consultant if they have a consultant and they should be the person that answers questions regarding the application um so that is sort of the idea with the update uh the update did go live on the Berto Review Board website uh on Friday and we plan to share this communicate or communicate the update via the Berto and review board newsletters our goto uh the real with the real estate working group members uh with the green ribbon commission as well because we've got we've received a lot of questions from the green ribbon commission members um and the Berto team will also present on hardship to the healthcare institution's working group this week so this Thursday uh and we are presenting to lisks energy core corts affordable housing members in May uh so those are some of our um Communications plans right now obviously if there more folks that you think we should be talking to we're happy to do that and happy to kind of highlight the updates that have been made and that was it for me all right thanks Di and so uh going back also just to your timeline the idea is that that I think what we have on the calendar is said July 1st the long-term applications are due and then um later the fall October 1st we're looking at the short-term applications being due correct okay great um all right let's um we're going to do a round of just any questions uh or comments that uh board members might have I'll um if it's okay I'm just going to go and reverse sort of this time board member Ali are there just any comments or questions you'd like to you like to offer uh no just I want to again uh thank the the team um the Berto team for uh exceptional work this is this is difficult you're hearing a lot of opinions you're you're literally and figuratively drinking out of a fire hose so we appreciate it I think uh I think this this whole compliance uh hardship compliance uh questionnaire I think has ended up in a much stronger place so no questions grateful for uh grateful for all your good work right thanks board member uh Al board member Nelson no questions or comments and likewise great work great um I uh am on the same page here I I've I've gone through these yeah it it um I think it's probably helpful to to break them out I think like you all you all did um um so anyway appreciate you responding to the the feedback and um I'm excited to kind of see what we get um I know it's it's still a little ways away July 1 um but um again thanks thanks for all the work youall are doing I I don't have anything else to offer um board member vlore yeah thank you I my comment is in the chat about you know when the question was asked about is there anyone else that you we may want to present this to and I just put in the the mass Association of cdc's Boston committee which is all Boston Community Development corporations that's it great thank you board L uh board member Jacobs no questions at the moment um board member Ellis yes thank you and um I Echo what my colleagues have said thank you for incorporating those comments uh that the the com uh members of the uh the public have uh put forth I am wondering and I'm actually trying to find their name um they're I believe historic Boston incorporated as one organization but I think there's another um preservation based uh nonprofit in the city that might be that might benefit from this uh presentation as well uh especially if they haven't been involved in knowing how historic buildings are uh sort of going to have to respond to this so I'll see if I can find the name of the other one and and drop that in the chat thank thank you thank you board member Ellis um councelor Keta no further questions Shar thank you all so much for your work uh and board member Boyd nope all set and thank you everyone okay for your hard work um uh you know just because I I feel like there folks that are here I'm not sure if there there are you know it looks like some some members of the public so I think I will open it up for a public comment period again um I will I will just kind of read the script here but um we're gonna I would love to hear if there's any members of the public that would just have any comments or questions on this uh so we're going to open the meeting to public comment as a reminder uh to members of the public provide to provide public comment you can raise your hand or type in the chat in the application via the zoom meeting platform if you're calling in and you cannot use platforms you can raise your hand by pressing star n you can also send your questions to staff via email at Berto review board boston.gov um let's try to keep our comments to three minutes uh uh I think and um please introduce yourself you have organization or neighborhood um so I will just uh open it please if you have any questions or comments regarding um the hardship compliance plan applications guide that we were just talking about would love to hear it so I will pause for a moment to see if there's any public comments okay once twice okay well I think um that's fine we will go ahead and close the public comment period then um thank you everyone thanks staff again for your work on this um and let's move on to our um fourth agenda item please so we're going to go ahead and um always have a section here on administrative updates um Diana pass to you yes thank you uh I'll just cover some administrative updates uh I know we now know Hassan faruki executive director of the Boston climate Action Network is the nominee that the mayor has put forward to the city council as the uh replacement for uh former board member Palmer Dunning uh there have been no updates to my knowledge yet uh I will be sure to I'll will be sure to share with the review board when his nomination is up for vote by the city council um and then hopefully we can get him oriented and on the board pretty quickly um I should also note the Air Pollution Control Commission has voted to approve updated regulations so the Berto team found a decent amount of typos and grammatical errors in the regulations so we put them to the Air Pollution Control Commission we updated them and and put it forward to the air potion Control Commission um so we up we did update the reason I want to note this is because if you're someone who saved the regulations as a PDF version there is an updated version on the Berto website and the Berto regulations website if I just wanted to flag that for folks um another update I just wanted to provide to the review board here is the timeline for our contract with RDH building science so some board members have already been interviewed with RDH other board members should have a calendar hold for this week um this as a reminder is a supplement interview to go with the survey that they've uh shared with board members and they are we are Contracting with them to do some tech technical capacity building um and they are going to also provide some on call technical services and prepare some materials and library of resources um for future iterations of the riview board as well so if you have any questions about that happy to answer um it seems like we had a really good interview for the first one so I'm really excited to hear more about how these go uh but just wanted to remind folks about this um and then I also wanted to remind folks about May 27th so we meet every second and fourth Mondays of the month uh May 27th is Memorial Day so we proposed in the last meeting to either uh move the meeting to Tuesday May 28th if we have applications queued up by the Friday May 17th which is sort of the day that we post agendas so 10 days ahead of our meeting uh so if we do have applications queued up and ready to be reviewed we propose moving it to Tuesday May 28th if we did not have applications queued up by Friday May 17th we propose forgoing this meeting um and then meeting on June 10th it seemed like there was General agreement um from the review board but of course if there people if there are differences now please let us know um but just wanted to put that on the radar because may is around the corner so just wanted to send a reminder as well uh and then our next tentative meeting is scheduled for May 11th uh which may seem a little tricky but it's three weeks from now because the second Monday um is not in two weeks it's in three weeks I say May 11th I met May 13 I think you spent the 13th right yes sorry yeah thank you CH great um just any quick just questions or comments from the board on this I'm not going to go through the whole list but um yeah I see board member Ellis I'm sorry is that you y That's me not a problem um di know just out of curiosity um and you may have explained this in the previous call um how was how did the city go about selecting RH because I I was just curious how you chose this company to be our sort of technical advisors and and so on and so forth this is a great uh actual great example of the procurement process um so uh so we drafted a um a scope of work so it included these different tasks so building cap technical capacity for the review board uh building resources uh bringing sort of like the the evidence um to to the different uh technical capacity building they would be providing and also on call services so if there was a hardship compliance plan application for example that the review board was like we would love some technical expertise on this it was call on RDH so we put out that ad um and then different service providers will well they'll do like a FAQ so we'll do a question and answer session and then different vendors will bid on the project um that's sort of the kind of how the that's a very summarized um process that's helpful no it it was just a for me it was just a slight surprise when I was like oh there was a company selected so I guess I didn't know what was going on behind the scenes with with respect you probably did say it and I apologize um but I just was uh curious about how how they came to be um in in the space but thank you uh back to you chair yeah board member I know I think Hannah was um she went ahead and shared in our in our folders the maybe for last month or last meeting the actual RFP or is that what they call it the the document that they used to um say here's what we want in um in in for these for this contract and so that was really helpful for me to take a look at going into those interviews I don't know and I still don't actually even know what RDH stands for I can't find it but RDH building Serv Sciences they definitely seem to be excited about working with us they've done a lot of work in Canada from what I can tell a little bit in um around here uh definitely some in Seattle some projects that I think have a lot of bearing and connection to what we're hoping will get done in Boston um um and uh so I'm encouraged I don't don't know other organiz or companies that are offering the type of services they are but they seem very eager to work with this board to kind of help us um uh get kind of you know more up to speed and answer questions and be available so I I find that um I think that's going to be value added CH if I may just jump in with one um point so um if if if board members are interested also in the the request for proposal document that we shared with you um at the end of it it also has evaluation criteria so that will tell you kind of how we evaluated the different proposals that we've received on their technical merits and then on on price so that that's how we review proposals and it's as um Diana said a great example for what um the detail you'd have to put into an RFP if we were to move forward with option two as was being discussed earlier thanks Hannah um and thanks to Hanah so um any just other uh questions here I guess um yeah eager to obviously get our next um our our next uh Review Board member on so um hopefully that will move forward quickly I uh uh and then I think it's very clear about what the process is around the May 27th meeting being being moved or or potentially canceled so I I am fine with that um and yeah our next meeting is on the 13th I I don't have anything else board other board members hey right well I uh again always really appreciate the the discussion the questions the thoughtful on people have here um and uh yeah let's let's move to our final item on the agenda we're going to go ahead and and uh and adjourn so so um motion to adjourn Mr chair yes thank you uh is there a second second great uh all the board members in favor please say I or raise your hand I iOS the eyes have it motion passes the meeting is adjourned at 608m thanks everyone we'll see you in a couple weeks be safe thank you thank youone thank you everyone bye thank you everybody thanks