Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Benefit Matrix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taos MRA board tests community‑benefit scoring matrix in mock RFP exercise
Summary
The Taos MRA board ran a tabletop exercise using sample matrices to score two fictional applicants — a Youth Steward Network nonprofit and a donut shop — and directed staff to convert the matrix to a spreadsheet, refine weighting and return a revised version for the June 17 meeting.
The Taos MRA Board spent most of its meeting running a hands‑on exercise to test and refine a proposed community benefit/project‑selection matrix drawn from the MRA plan.
Board members used two fictional RFP responses — a Youth Steward Network nonprofit (training, paid internships, demonstration garden) and a for‑profit donut shop with a second‑story residential unit — to walk through scoring categories such as reuse of existing structures, energy and water efficiency, landscaping, alternative transportation, cultural programming and public‑use spaces. A presenter supplied sample matrices from Albuquerque, Farmington and other models for comparison and noted some categories in the local draft remained undefined.
The exercise revealed wide differences in totals when subjective weightings are allowed. Board members read their category scores aloud and reported the youth nonprofit accumulated substantially more points than the donut shop in this mock exercise; participants said that outcome illustrated how scoring scales and category weights can produce large spreads between applicants. One participant recommended simplifying the scale (for example, 0–3 instead of 0–10) to reduce subjectivity, while others argued for a limited discretionary category to account for potential long‑term economic benefits not captured by strict criteria.
Members discussed several specific clarifications they want in the matrix and RFP instructions: require schematic design or sufficient detail to justify claimed points (for example, for outdoor seating, drainage or demonstration gardens); specify how second‑story residential uses would be evaluated (to avoid rewarding short‑term rentals/Airbnb without affordability or occupancy conditions); and define treatment of revenue generation or gross‑receipts taxes where nonprofits operate commercial enterprises. The group also considered awarding points for use of local contractors or locally driven programming and asked staff to make those categories explicit.
Chair noted that the town owns multiple parcels within the MRA area and reported meeting with Tim Corner, the town GIS analyst, to obtain clearer overlays showing parcel ownership, lot footprints and infrastructure constraints. Members said those GIS resources will help determine project feasibility and whether town‑owned land could be prioritized for certain initiatives.
Action taken: the board instructed staff to translate the draft matrix from the MRA plan into an editable spreadsheet, incorporate the changes discussed in today’s exercise (including defined point values where missing and clearer guidance on required application materials), and circulate the revised matrix for the commissioners to review before the next meeting. Commissioners were asked to email additional recommended edits to staff so they can be collated. The board set its next MRA meeting for June 17.
The session began with routine approvals and a Citizens Forum and concluded after the matrix discussion and scheduling. No formal funding decisions or land dispositions were approved at this meeting; the board’s direction was limited to refining the scoring tool and returning a revised proposal for consideration.
