Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County board advances 13 projects for fuller review of RCG/RCOG funding
Summary
After reviewing 57 applicants, the Grand County Economic Development Advisory Board voted unanimously to advance the top 13 scored projects to a second round of one‑page budgets, interviews and further vetting for RCG and RCOG grant opportunities. A subcommittee was empowered to design next steps and applicant communications.
The Grand County Economic Development Advisory Board voted unanimously on March 26 to advance the top 13 scored grant applicants for further review in the county’s RCG and RCOG funding processes.
The board chair opened the meeting noting a robust call for applications that drew 57 applicants. Staff presented a composite ranking of top projects and the associated ‘‘ask’’ figures; staff cautioned that some asks reflected total project cost rather than the requested grant amount and said those figures would be clarified in the next stage. Board members discussed whether to set a numeric score threshold or to split finalists by grant type before agreeing that a slate of finalists would be invited to provide a one‑page budget and to appear for interviews.
James Dixon, a guest who advises on RCG/RCOG rules, told the board that RCOG awards historically fund larger county‑led projects and are seldom used to support many small subgrants, and that RCOG awards typically require a matching contribution. "It's probably on a very low probability" that RCOG would fund many subgrants, Dixon said, but he added that RCG funds have been used in some counties as part of a match for larger regional grants in limited cases.
Under the motion approved by the board, staff will invite the top 13 applicants to submit a one‑page project summary and an itemized budget; those applicants will be scheduled for interviews in an extended April meeting, giving the board time to deliberate before making final recommendations to the county commission. The board also authorized an existing subcommittee to finalize the materials applicants must submit, set deadlines, and handle communications to both advancing and non‑advancing applicants. The board emphasized transparency: applicants not chosen for the board recommendation will still be able to submit full applications to the county commission, which makes the final awards.
Next steps set by the board include a longer April session for applicant interviews, a month for follow‑up research, and a May decision meeting to finalize recommendations for the commission.
