EOAB to explore county-backed high-impact projects, directs subcommittee to prepare December shortlist

The Economic Opportunity Advisory Board on Nov. 19 debated shifting the county's $200,000 Rural County Grant (RCG) program toward a county-backed, "high-impact" project approach and voted to ask its subcommittee to work with economic development staff to bring a preliminary list of county-centered projects to the December meeting.

Moderator explained two grant streams: the RCG (about $200,000 annually for Grand County) and the competitive RCOG (up to about $600,000). Subcommittee members argued targeting larger county-implemented projects could leverage additional funding and produce multiplier effects; other members warned a targeted approach risks excluding small local entrepreneurs and community projects that benefited from previous open subgrant rounds.

Supporters pointed to past and proposed projects as examples: an EMS destination training program designed to attract outside trainees and workforce development (previously selected for RCOG consideration), investments in assisted-living capacity (a county care center currently contended with a waiting list), and infrastructure projects such as airport improvements or commercial kitchens that could generate revenue for county economic development work. "We have a waiting list of 90 folks" for the care center and the facility can expand from 18 to 36 beds, Melody McCallis said, arguing that focused county-backed work could address urgent needs.

Opponents and those urging balance stressed that small grants helped startups and built local capacity; one board member noted $5,000 or $10,000 grants made a practical difference for entrepreneurs. Members proposed hybrid pathways: run a county-focused track while preserving a smaller subgrant program, create a guidebook with flowcharts and reporting requirements, and stage outreach to department heads and special service districts to surface ready projects.

The board approved a motion directing the grants subcommittee to meet with the economic development staff specialist and present a preliminary list of county-centered projects at the December board meeting for discussion (no final decision at that time). The motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote.

Board members also discussed next steps for accountability and administration: creating consistent application guidance and contracting templates, engaging the county attorney's office on contract and reimbursement language, and building reporting requirements into grant agreements after noting state grant programs are trending toward tiered reimbursement and reimbursement-only models.

The subcommittee's December deliverable is intended to help the EOAB decide whether to prioritize a smaller number of county-sponsored projects, continue a broadly open subgrant process, or combine both approaches for the next RCG cycle.