Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses treasurer’s office on portfolio structure and Plumas Bank sweep‑account rates
Summary
Members examined the quarterly portfolio, discussed a planned adviser change from PFM to Chandler, and raised questions about lower-than‑expected interest credited by a Plumas Bank sweep account; the committee asked staff to get formal bank documentation and to review audit findings at the next meeting.
Committee members spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing the county’s investment portfolio, asking detailed questions about where cash is held and why a local bank sweep account had recently earned a lower rate than expected.
A treasurer’s‑office presenter reviewed the quarterly portfolio summary and said the long‑term investments managed by the county’s adviser showed a closing market value of roughly $33,000,005 (long‑term subtotal reported in the packet). The presenter described liquid cash holdings separately: trust and custody cash (reported in the transcript near $149,000), state pooled accounts (LAIF and CAMP), and a Plumas Bank analysis/sweep account reported at approximately $27,000,009.
Several members questioned why the Plumas Bank analysis account had, for some recent quarters, not matched the advertised or previously quoted rate. One member noted the bank had told county staff it would "match the LAIF rate," but the committee saw quarters where the credited rate fell short. The treasurer’s office said staff would contact Plumas Bank, request formal written agreements or clarifications, and report back at the next meeting. The committee recorded a follow‑up action to obtain the bank’s written rate agreement (if any) and to ask about FDIC/insurance exposure on the amounts held in the sweep account.
Members also discussed the county’s investment adviser transition: county staff said the board approved moving from PFM to Chandler Asset Management because PFM was acquired by a large national bank (US Bank) and Chandler specializes in smaller California counties. Staff described the onboarding steps (uploading statements and building the adviser’s platform) and said they would aim to minimize overlap in billing; the adviser switch requires a 30‑day notice to PFM once the county gives formal notice.
Other technical points discussed included how the portfolio’s book value and market value can differ (amortization and par vs. market), the distinction between discretionary and non‑discretionary trades, and the role of the treasury oversight audit in verifying compliance with the investment policy. Several members requested the external auditor and the investment adviser attend a future meeting to walk the committee through the portfolio detail and answer technical questions.
The committee listed specific follow‑ups: obtain and post the March and quarterly reports, have an adviser briefing (PFM/Chandler) at a future meeting, and secure a written bank rate explanation from Plumas Bank. The treasurer’s office said it would email the March rate detail to committee members and include audit materials at the next regular meeting.
The meeting ended with the chair and clerk confirming next steps and scheduling the next meeting for July 15 at 1:30 p.m.
