HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-10 Special Called Regular Meeting of Fiscal Affairs Committee
2
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED REGULAR MEETING OF THE FISCAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
July 8, 2010
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Chuck Engelken at 5:30 p.m.
Members of Committee Present: Board Members Chuck Engelken, Louis Rigby and Tommy
Moser.
Members of Committee Absent: None
Members of City Council. City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Manager
Ron Bottoms, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Director of Finance Michael Dolby and
City Secretary Martha Gillett.
Others present: Dottie Kaminski, Mr. and Mrs. Nolley, Stephanie Harris of Belt Harris
Pechacek and staff.
2. Consider approval of Minutes of the Special Called Regular Meeting of Fiscal Affairs
Committee held June 29, 2010.
Motion was made by Committee Member Moser to approve the minutes as presented. A
second by Committee Member Rigby. The motion carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Rigby and Moser
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
3. Review and consider approving the scope of work to be performed by Belt Harris Pechacek in
conducting a forensic audit of the Town Plaza Project - C. Engelken
Stephanie Harris provided an overview to the Fiscal Affairs Committee. She informed the
committee they would not be issuing an opinion on this matter. They provided the committee
with a handout outlining the proposal.
Committee member Rigby made a motion to approve the scope of work and take the matter
back to City Council to request an additional $5,000.00. Second by Moser. The motion
carried.
Ayes: Engelken, Moser and Rigby
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Fiscal Affairs Committee - Special Called Regular Meeting - July 8,2010
2
4. Approve Engagement Letter - C. Engelken
This item was tabled and will be taken to City Council for approval on July 12, 2010.
5. Administrative Reports
City Manager Ron Bottoms did not provide an Administrative Report.
6. Committee Comments
There were not any comments from the Committee.
Matters appearing on agenda
A. Recognition of community members, city employee, and upcoming events
B. Inquiry of staff regarding specific factual information or existing policy
7. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at
6:55 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
J1L CUL!ftVItJJL .~ I (J{ I{ C ~
Martha Gillett, TRMC
City Secretary
Approved this day of 2010.
Chuck Engelken, Chairman
ckui~
3
CITY OF LA PORTE
Interoffice Memorandum
TO:
Darryl Leonard, Mayor Pro Tern
Chuck Engelken, Councilmember
Tommy Moser, Councilmember
Louis Rigby, Councilmember
Ron Bottoms, City Manager
John Joerns, Assistant City Manager
FROM:
Michael Dolby, Director of Finance
Phyllis Rinehart, Controller
DATE:
July 14,2010
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Investment Report
For the third quarter of the 2010 fiscal year, the City's investment portfolio yield has been between .47% and
.55%. The average return on the portfolio for the third quarter of the fiscal year was .52%, which is above the
average yield of our benchmark, which was .24% (see graph below). Our benchmark is the 6- month T-Bill
rate. The year to date interest earned for the 2010 fiscal year for all funds was $278,623 which is
approximately 58% of the $479,800 budgeted for the year.
City V5. Benchmark
2.1 DC}; - --------------------------------------------------------------------
1.10% -
...............
0.100;;
9 8 9 ~ ~ 9 ~ Q ~ Q ~ Q
~ ~r;:j 55 <:f"V ~'-J s::> ';Y :-; '!.. ';Y ~ "; ~ "-; ~ ";
') ~::> c.,e~ <::> ~o <;:l'; ""')'b-~ x~ ~7> ~~ ~7j ""').::i
-Portfolio Yield -Denchmark
At June 30th, the City's portfolio consisted of 68% in Texpool, 13% in Agency Notes, 17% in Certificates
of Deposit, 1 % in TexSTAR and 1 % in Logic (see pie chart below).
By Investment Type
170,0
1%
68%
13%
.Texpool .TexSTAR CLogic . Agency Notes 111 Certificates of Deposit
.
The most current overnight rate was set on December 16, 2008 at 0.00% to .25%. At the end of the third
quarter, the City's portfolio consisted of 70% of the portfolio maturing overnight (see graph below), 17% of
the City's portfolio matures in 1-12 months, 7% maturing in 12-24 months and 6% maturing in 24-36
months.
By Inve~1ment Maturity
. ..
7% 6%
70%
.Ovemight 01-12Months 1!!112-24Months II 24-36 Months
Currently, the 3-month T-Bill is at .16%; 2-year, at .78%; 5-year, at 2.09%; and, the 20-year is at 4.03% see
yield curve below).
Yield Cune
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
#<1-
~
ro#'
" ~~ '" "*
Treasury Bills
<0"*
~~
,,~
~~
~
-3 months ago -current
The overnight rate is currently at 0.00% to .25%. We will continue to focus on laddering the portfolio to
maintain a constant cash flow and a liquid position.
2
In summary, we will continue to invest the City's funds in conservative investments, as authorized by the
Public Funds Investment Act, always keeping in mind Safety first, and then Liquidity and lastly Yield.
2YearT-Note
2.00C!io
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
O.OOC!o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~
....~<$ ....# ....~<$ ....~<:f ....# ....~<$ ....~<:f ....~<:f../ ....~<:f ....~<:f
3
Investment Pools
Agencies
Certificates of Deposit
Total
Par
Value
41,382,405
8,000,000
10,500,000
59,882,405
Book
Value
41,382,405
8,000,000
10,596,261
59,978,666
1-12 months
9-12 months
1-2 years
2-3 years
Total
Book
Value
41,382,405
10,596,261
4,000,000
4,000,000
59,978,666
Percent
69.00%
17.67%
6.67%
6.67%
100.00%
Pooled Funds
Bond Funds
Portfolio
Yield
0.55%
0.20%
Benchmark
Yield*
0.23%
0.16%
Total
0.38%
Portfolio Composition and Value
as of June 30, 2010
Market
Value
41,382,405
8,015,625
10,596,261
59,994,291
Days to
Maturity
1
650
142
112
Investment Maturity Schedule
as of June 30,2010
Portfolio Performance
for the month of June 30, 2010
Weighted
Average
Maturity
4.48 months
I day
0.20%
3.76 months
*The pooled funds benchmark is based on the average monthly yield of a 6-month Treasury.
The bond funds benchmark yield is based on the average monthly yield of a 3-month Treasury.
The total is based on weighted average monthly benchmark yields.
Portfolio Earnings
for month ended June 2010
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00"/0
Investment Pools
69.00%
-100-10
CDs
Agencies
17.67% 13.34%
. Joo-09
1-12 monthl
1-2 yean
6.00"/0
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00"/0
0.00"/0
Pooled Funds
Bond Funds
Total
,--:~=---- .. "--J
~olio Yi~~___~~~c~ark_~ic~~
800,000
Budget Actual Percent 600,000
General 225,000 115,905 51.51%
Enterprise 56,800 28,470 50.]2% 400,000
Internal Service 54,900 28,837 52.53%
Other Funds 143,100 105,410 73.66% 200,000
Total 479,800 278,623 58.07%
Yield Curve
.~ ~----
5.00% ..---------
4.00%. ----------
3.00% ---- .M.__________
::: ~-----=~=~-=n~~:~1
3mo
6mo
1"
2yr
5yr
-Apr-10 ~~;10----Jun-1l)]
WAM - Pooled Funds
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Apr-l0
May-l0
Jun-10
General Enterprise Internal Service other Funds
.Budget
.Actual
% of funds invested in:
Securities & Pools
Bank Depository
Total % of funds invested
Average for June
2010 2009
96.35% 91.89%
3.65% 8.11%
100.00"/. 100.00"/0
Operating Account Balance
2,270,136
4,817,895
Portfolio Yield vs Benchmark
t;:,"> t;:,">
~ ~
o ~o
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
:,()
<,e,~
Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-lO Feb-lO Mar-IO Apr-lO May-IO Jun-lO Jul-lO Aug.10 Sep.lO
. Benchmark 0.15% 0.16% 0.16% 0.15% 0.17% 0.19"'<: 0.24% 0.25% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
. Portfolio Yield 1.11% 1.16% 0.81% 0.70"'<: 0.56% 0.55% 0.47% 0.55% 0.55% 0.00"'<: 0.00"'<: 0.00"'<:
Additional Earnings
(over 6 month Treasury Bill)
400,000
200,000
~~ii~-=----
~~... ..
(f<:J"> ~<:JOj ~Oj ~ <:J ~~... ...
o ~o e,(j f:f :-; ...,,<:J <:J --=
<J \?i '<~ ?i<: ~:-; ...,,<:J ...,,<:J
~ ~~ _",?i-" f:f
~. \.::i
~ ",<:J
\.::i
~
?O
~.::i
~
<,e,<:I
Oct-09 Nov-09 Oec-09 Jan-lO Feb-lO Mar-IO Apr-lO May-lO Jun-lO Jul-10 Aug-lO Sep-lO
. Add Erng 41,446 39,655 26,702 21,275 8,636 25,555 24,242 11,519 11,854
. Cumm Erng 41,446 81,101 107,803 129,078 137,714 163,269 187,511 199,030 210,884 210,884 210,884 210,884
Investment Maturity
& Casbflow
(excluding Texpool, TexST AR & Logic)
8,000,000.00
7,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
,<> ,<> ,<> ,<> " " " " " .;-.' V ,'\. ,'\.
# .v~ ou"': cf <<.~' " # % oi.J"': ~o> " ')~~
<)0 ",'< .~ '1-'<
') '" ') ",'" <)
Market Gain (Loss)
by Month
20,000
5,000
SEP
15,000
10,000
(5,000)
AGENCIES
Monthly Portfolio Division
. 12%
.64%
.12%
12%
. Wells Fargo . Morgan Stanley 11 Coastal Securities . Amegy Bank
Average Return on Investments
1.00%
Coastal
Securities
1.30%
1,13%
1.30%
1.19%
1.30%
1.25%
1.20%
1.15%
1.10%
1.05%
. Average Yields
June 30, 2010
This report is in full compliance with the investment strategy as
established for the pooled investment fund and the Public Funds
Investment Act (Chapter 2256).
C3~)~}w,j
Ph)lll/s Rinehart
Controller
CITY OF LA PORTE
ffiTEROFFICEMffiMORANDUM
TO:
Louis Rigby, Mayor
Darryl Leonard, Councilman
Chuck Engelken, Councilman
Tommy Moser, Councilman
John Joems, Assistant City Manager
FROM:
Phyllis Rinehart, Controller
DATE:
September 7, 2010
RE:
Request for Proposal for Banking Services
The-City of La Porte received Proposals for Banking Services one August 24, 2010. Three banks
responded
The selection and award process for a banking -services agreement falls under the rules of a
"Proposal" instead of a "Bid". With a Bid, the process-is clear cut- you request a specific piece
of equipment and submit specifications. A Bid is a -very objectiv-e method because all vendors
give prices on very similar equipment. In aJ~roposal, like a Bid, you receive a price for certain
measurable units, but the "specifications" are subjective. With a professional service agreement,
there are other factors besides price that you have to consider.
In analyzing the proposals submitted by the three banks, there are six distinct areas that need to
be reviewed which are: (1) the compliance with the qualifications; (2) the ability to provide
services; (3) the response to required items per the quotation form; (4) the cost of services; (5)
the financial strength and (6) the convenience oflocation.
A committee of three employees in the finance department is in the process of reviewing the
RFPs received from the banks. They have interviewed the bank personnel. The three RFP's
received were competitive and the review process has required additional analysis and review.
The recommendation for the depository provider will be made a later date to allow the finance
personnel time to review the- documents from- the-banks.
I _ l I.. ( I I _ _