Board members press for clearer strategy, earlier outreach for next RCG/RCOG cycle

Board members spent the largest portion of the Aug. 27 meeting discussing how to improve the RCG/RCOG grant cycle and how grant strategy should fit into a broader county economic development plan.

Aaron Lindberg and several board members urged starting the next grant outreach earlier—ideally advertising in December with a January workshop—so applicants can prepare and the board can perform deeper due diligence. “We started the process around February, felt kind of scrunched and squished,” Lindberg said; a later comment summarized the board’s view: start outreach earlier so the commission can consider recommendations in time to get funding into the county in the next fiscal cycle.

Members pushed for clearer, published criteria to help applicants self‑select and save time. Several speakers argued for using a “multiplier” criterion—preferring projects that generate broader community economic impacts or support other local businesses—rather than funding isolated microbusinesses that do not scale. As one member said: “If we're trying to actually affect our economy as a whole... the businesses that are gonna help other businesses or have that multiplier effect” should be prioritized.

Commissioner Melody McCamless and staff representative Melissa Jeffers discussed how the board’s work should align with county-level planning and the staff work plan. Jeffers said she is drafting priorities and working with county administration and state partners to identify implementable tasks tied to existing strategic materials and the county’s general plan. She described the role as translating higher‑level strategy into near‑term tasks that can be matched to funding sources and metrics. “I am taking the strategic plan that we have, and I'm putting my own focus and priorities,” Jeffers said.

Members raised practical policy questions: should the board limit use of RCG/RCOG funds to certain categories (for example, support for existing local businesses, event attraction, workforce development, or housing), or leave the program broadly open? Some members expressed concern about “picking winners and losers” and urged that grant priorities be coordinated with other county funding streams (TRT, city sales tax investments) and regional partners (US EDA, regional development agencies). Core elements repeatedly raised were housing, workforce stability and attracting off‑season events that produce “heads in beds.”

The board agreed to continue refining criteria, consider hosting a pre‑application workshop for prospective applicants in late winter, and to request clearer direction and a dollar range from the commission and county administration so the board can finalize procedures. Board members also recommended inviting regional partners (the regional EDA representative and the revolving loan fund coordinator) to present at a future meeting.

There were no formal votes adopting new grant criteria at this meeting; the discussion produced direction to staff and a consensus to pursue earlier outreach and clearer published criteria for the next cycle.