Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oregon Investment Board Loans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon Investment Board outlines revolving loan program and Gorge Commission's certification role
Summary
Representatives from the Oregon Investment Board briefed the committee on a revolving loan fund (roughly $10 million originally authorized for the Scenic Area, split between Oregon and Washington), how loans are underwritten and the Gorge Commission's role in certifying consistency with Scenic Area rules.
Jessica Mena of the Mid-Columbia Economic Development District told the Economic Vitality Committee that Mid-Columbia EDD administers the Oregon Investment Board (OIB) and that when the Scenic Area was created it authorized $10,000,000 for economic development loans and grants split between the two states. "When the scenic area was created, they authorized 10,000,000 for economic development loans and grants, split between the states," Mena said, and described a process in which staff underwrites loan applications, the investment board acts on approvals, and the Gorge Commission staff issues a letter verifying compliance with Scenic Area rules before loans close.
Mena said OIB has shifted toward prioritizing loans (a revolving fund) rather than grants to preserve the fund's longevity and that grants are now limited and often target workforce-development initiatives. "It's a revolving loan fund," she said, adding that grants are typically for workforce training and similar projects.
Gil (the Oregon Investment Board chair) described the board's focus: loans for businesses that cannot access standard bank financing, efforts to diversify award sizes and sectors, and a pilot program prioritizing women- and minority-owned businesses. He emphasized that the Gorge Commission must approve loans for Scenic Area consistency: "All of our decisions have to be approved by the Columbia River Gorge Commission," he said.
Commissioners discussed where loan demand is concentrated (mostly urban areas), potential rural-targeted programs, and the certification workload for Commission staff. Some commissioners cautioned that most applications come from urbanized areas and asked for data on geographic outcomes; staff and OIB offered to provide additional reports and convene bi-state advisory meetings to coordinate next steps.
The briefing produced no formal votes. Committee members asked staff to share materials and to coordinate participation in an upcoming Bi-State Advisory Council meeting.
