Metro’s Natural Areas: Maintenance Strategy Needed ALGA Conference Nashville, TN May 6-7, 2013

Presentation outline What is Metro? Metro’s Office of the Auditor Natural Area Maintenance Audit Questions and Discussion

What is Metro? An elected regional government, that serves more than 1.7 million residents in Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties and the 25 cities in the Portland region. Annual budget of about $536 million with 741 FTE

What is Metro? Responsible for the region’s: Recycling and waste disposal system Land use and transportation planning Regional parks and natural areas Oregon Zoo Performing arts, convention and exhibit centers

Metro’s Office of the Auditor Small office Elected Auditor Four staff auditors One administrative assistant Focus on performance audits Hours per audit range from 200 to 2,500 hours Average about five reports per year Average 680 hours per audit We spent 2,300 hours on this audit

Who we are Brian Evans Michael Anderson Former economist with State of Oregon 5 years auditing Michael Anderson 3 years auditing

Audit background Metro spent $129 million to purchase 8,203 acres using funds from 1995 Bond Measure. Metro spent $69 million to purchase 3,166 acres using funds from the 2006 Bond Measure

Natural Areas The focus is on nature Parks… …are for people. Natural Areas… …are for wildlife.

Planning vs. Implementing Scientists do this… Technicians do that…

We reviewed plans and expenditures at three parks Graham Oaks Cooper Mtn. Mount Talbert Management System Metro owned, Metro maintained. Metro owned, partner maintained with funding and technical assistance from Metro. Metro owned, partner maintained with technical assistance from Metro. Acres 250 230 220 Park Operations $60,000 $383,000 $20,000 Maintenance & Restoration $633,000 $151,000 $137,000 Construction $3.2 million $1.6 million Acquisition & Stabilization $2.6 million $9.1 million $13.8 million

Fieldwork

Learning about maintenance 15 site visits to the parks and natural areas in the region. 108 hours with the scientists and technicians who work in the natural areas. Interviews with Metro’s partners to understand challenges.

Understanding program history Analyzed 15 years of electronic and paper expenditure data. Reviewed park planning and natural area restoration documents Reviewed IGAs and bond documents. Using these two methodologies (qualitative and quantitative) we were able to compare maintenance strategies to expenditures.

What we found

Maintenance priorities are needed

Maintenance priorities are needed Metro’s land management role increased Land needs maintenance Maintenance needs increase when parks are built Metro pays someone to maintain the land Metro develops in-house maintenance capacity Costs increase when this… …is turned into this

Maintenance priorities are needed Without overarching strategy it was difficult to assess progress and adapt techniques

Maintenance priorities are needed Elements of land management system could be improved  Not all done Needs work…  Not all done  Unclear Not all done

Maintenance priorities are needed Without a plan, priorities were inconsistent at Mount Talbert Use Conflicts: Parking lot built in wildlife corridor

Maintenance priorities are needed Without a plan, priorities were inconsistent at Cooper Mountain Use Conflicts: Parking lot built in wetland …to build beautiful park facilities! Wetland impacts require mitigation…

Management responsibilities need to be clarified

Management responsibilities need to be clarified Roles and responsibilities unclear Who does the work?

Management responsibilities need to be clarified As role evolved, costs increased Metro’s maintenance standard is high Metro Standard Partner Standard Illegal Dumping Illegal Dumping Metro Standard: Post signs, monitor activity, talk to homeowner, install cameras, report to authorities Partner Standard: Monitor activity, talk to home owner Invasive Plants Metro Standard: Kill and remove plants, return to pre-European state with native species, maintain for 3-5 years Partner Standard: Kill plants, monitor and kill any new growth Invasive Plants

Management responsibilities need to be clarified Lack of clarity hinders evaluation Graham Oaks Cooper Mtn. Mount Talbert Management System Metro owned, Metro maintained. Metro owned, partner maintained with funding and technical assistance from Metro. Metro owned, partner maintained with technical assistance from Metro. Park Operations $60,000 $383,000 $20,000 Roles & Responsibilities Clear Clear, for now Unclear Maintenance Standards High High, for now Low BUSY Metro wants to move from the Graham Oaks model to either a Cooper Mountain model, or a Mount Talbert model. The question is, which one?

Recommendations

Prioritize maintenance Develop site specific plans for land to be maintained Define the maintenance standard for each site plan Ensure that plans include all maintenance activities regardless of who performs them Periodically review prioritization and plans

Organize land management Clarify roles and responsibilities Develop systems to better track expenditures and estimate future costs Develop, collect, and monitor performance measures to improve maintenance strategies Improve management of partnership agreements Develop a toolkit that includes how standards will be implemented Define what technical assistance will be provided.

Results

Management response We agree with the recommendations but… “Detailed planning takes a significant amount of staff time and comes at the cost of addressing some day-to-day needs on the ground.”

Operating levy Local Option Levy 26-152 “Improve natural areas, water quality for fish” Election Day: May 21

Questions

Contact Information Report Natural Areas Maintenance http://rim.oregonmetro.gov/webdrawer/rec/235151/view/Office of the Auditor - Performance Audit Reports - Audit Reports - Natural Areas Maintenance Audit.PDF Presenters Brian.Evans@oregonmetro.gov Michael.Anderson@oregonmetro.gov