In 1995, wooed by promises of accountability, Portland-area
voters agreed to shell out $135.6 million so Metro could
buy some parcels of undeveloped land.
Five years later, the agency has spent $112 million to
protect more than 6,000 acres. Sure, the land is beautiful--but
did the public get what the bond measure campaign promised?
And, has it gotten the best bang for its buck?
Those are the questions Metro auditor Alexis Dow attempted
to answer in a report released last week. The audit on
Metro's Open Spaces program focused on many of the same
areas as a February WW cover story ("Green Acres,"
Feb. 2, 2000). The WW investigation found evidence
that Metro was overpaying on numerous properties on the
basis of generous land appraisals commissioned by Metro.
In addition, WW found, those appraisals likely
prevented the extent of the overpayments from being made
in public.
Dow's audit made similar findings. For example:
*Appraisals are questionable: In a random sample of 12
purchases, Dow found that Metro appears to have overpaid
in four. In one case, Dow found, Metro used a questionable
appraisal to pay $750,000 for a property that the audit
said was probably worth $545,000.
*There's little public review: Under Metro rules, the
elected Metro Council must approve purchases only when
the agency pays significantly more than the appraised
value. Because many purchases were based on appraisals
that appear generous, the full extent of the apparent
overpayments was not discussed. In addition, in three
of the 12 purchases Dow reviewed, "unusual circumstances"
concerning the property were not shared with the council
or the public, as required. One property purchased, for
example, contained asbestos contamination in a building
on site--a fact that wasn't made public.
*Integrity has suffered: Since independent land valuations
are the safeguard against overpayment by the Open Spaces
program, appraisals are supposed to be kept separate from
that staff. Dow, however, found that four of the 12 appraisals
she examined were commissioned not by Metro's general
counsel office, which reports to the elected executive,
but by the Open Spaces staff, which the appraisals were
intended to keep in check. (Moreover, six of the 12 "reviews"
intended to ensure that appraisals were done correctly
were hired out by the Open Spaces staff--not by the General
Counsel's office, as was intended.)
The reaction from Metro officials seems to be that the
audit, like WW's story last February, was much
ado about nothing.
Metro Presiding Officer David Bragdon says that although
the program may have had problems early on, the audit
confirms that they have been taken care of. As for whether
the appraisers hired by Metro were over-generous, he says,
"I don't think they're going to jeopardize their professional
status just to tell us a cute story.... I'm confident
that we got all the information we need."
Fellow councilor Rod Park says he has "concerns about
the accuracy of the audit," adding that in his experience,
land value is "all subjective." The bottom line, he adds,
is that "we are over-acreage and under-budget on the program
as a whole."
Dow, too, was less critical of the program than WW
had been: "They're getting the job done, but they can
tighten things up a little bit."
