Skip to main content
Metro’s data department, which helps local governments decide where to build housing and protect natural areas, still hasn’t finished reforms it was told to make five years ago, a new audit shows.
Metro’s Data Resource Center manages the region’s massive mapping and data system, used by the tri-county regional government itself and cities in the Portland area to plan land use, track environmental resources, and comply with state regulations. In other words, it provides the technical backbone for decisions on what gets built and where.
When the Data Resources Center makes mistakes or misses deadlines, it can delay important projects or create confusion for cities, counties and other public agencies that rely on its data.
The DRC acts like an internal consulting shop, earning some of its funding by taking on paid projects for other Metro departments, as well as cities, counties and outside agencies. Clients pay the center to create maps, analyze demographic data, build dashboards, and provide other technical services that support everything from housing and transportation planning to environmental protection.
A follow-up audit released May 7 found that the center fully implemented four of eight recommendations by a 2020 audit aimed at improving project tracking, prioritization and communication. Three recommendations remain in progress, and one has not been implemented.
The 2020 audit flagged sloppy recordkeeping, unclear budgeting, and inconsistent communication with the department’s clients—which include other Metro departments, cities, counties and state agencies that hire the center to provide custom maps, reports and data analysis.
In response, the center rolled out new project proposal templates, a project tracker tool, and other updates to improve transparency and accountability. But auditors say the department isn’t using the tools consistently, leaving gaps in records, and risking miscommunication with clients.
“More consistent use of project proposals and project management systems would fully implement the in-process recommendations,” the auditors wrote.
Among the findings: In a sample of six recent projects, only three had complete project proposals, and only one had a client’s signature. Documents were saved in at least five different locations, including private email folders, making it harder for management or clients to access them.
The audit also noted the center still lacks a formal process for approving changes to ongoing projects—a recommendation from 2020 that remains unfulfilled.
In a written response, Metro chief operating officer Marissa Madrigal said management agrees with the audit’s findings and is working to address them. The agency plans to establish clearer documentation protocols, improve file organization, and reinforce expectations with staff by this fall. That includes better rules for how staff store and share project documents and stronger expectations for keeping clients in the loop.
Metro’s funding model for the center has also stabilized since the last audit, but auditors warned it remains vulnerable if anticipated revenue from client projects doesn’t materialize. Last fiscal year, direct service revenues fell about $767,000 short of budget projections—accounting for more than 60% of the department’s shortfall.
To avoid further budget gaps, Madrigal said Metro has reduced staffing expectations tied to client-funded projects and will continue to budget more cautiously.