Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madras hears private investment‑adviser pitch; council leans toward county pool to avoid fees
Summary
Government Portfolio Advisors outlined options for Madras to invest city funds with an adviser versus staying in Jefferson County's pool; councilors expressed concern about fees (minimum $10,000) and, after discussion, several members favored continuing participation in the county LGIP to avoid additional costs.
Madras — Diane Woodring of Portland‑based Government Portfolio Advisors (GPA) presented Jan. 14 on whether Madras should hire an adviser and invest some city funds privately or return funds to Jefferson County’s pooled investment program.
Woodring described GPA’s approach — a blend of liquidity and a longer‑term core portfolio designed to boost yield over a full interest‑rate cycle — and noted her firm’s minimum fee (reported in the presentation as $10,000). "We do an ongoing service for our clients ... and our minimum fee is $10,000," she told councilors.
Finance director Kate (last name not specified) and the county finance director (who also sits on council) explained how the city moved money in 2023: about $7 million was withdrawn from the county pool into the state Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), and roughly $1.5 million was placed in a bank money‑market account. Councilors asked whether the long‑term net return from a standalone adviser would materially exceed county pool participation after adviser fees.
Councilor Solis and others argued the incremental return would not justify the cost for a smaller city. Solis said the county pool provides similar returns and spreads fees across participants; he recommended staying with the county pool. Councilor Seabold (county finance director) flagged the double‑hat issue and emphasized prudence with taxpayer dollars.
No formal motion was taken; staff said the presentation was informational. Council asked staff to continue evaluating options and to return with more detailed cost/benefit analysis if they decide to pursue an adviser relationship.
Why it matters: the discussion touches city treasury management and potential fees that would reduce net investment returns. For smaller jurisdictions, adviser fees can offset yield gains, so the choice affects short‑ and long‑term city revenues.
What’s next: staff will continue analysis and return with a recommendation if pursuing GPA or similar advisers becomes a council decision.
