Redondo Beach treasurer reports $77.9 million portfolio; commission asks for clearer allocation reports

City Treasurer Eugene Solomon presented the Redondo Beach City Commission with the city’s third‑quarter investment report for fiscal year 2025–26, reporting a total investment portfolio of $77,897,000 and continued alignment with last year’s performance. The commission moved to accept and file the report at the meeting.

Solomon introduced two outside contributors to the report, Rick Phillips of METRE Investments and consultant Nilesh Mehta, and walked through the materials attached to the agenda, including the portfolio summary, policy compliance review, cash‑flow analysis and maturity schedule. “Always remember whose money it is — it is the community’s money and not ours,” Solomon said, urging conservative stewardship of principal while balancing liquidity and yield.

The treasurer flagged a reporting artifact shown in the Clearwater report indicating a corporate‑issuer concentration as “non‑compliant,” but explained that compliance is assessed at the time of purchase and that the portfolio was compliant when the securities were acquired. Solomon told commissioners that staff checks guidance from state associations and noted the Clearwater display is driven by the timing of holdings rather than purchases.

Solomon reported a $10,000,000 security maturing in January 2027 that carries a low coupon (about 1.37%), a factor that currently depresses the portfolio’s yield. He said staff continuously analyzes maturing holdings for opportunities to reinvest without compromising safety and liquidity.

Commissioners asked for clearer explanatory material and allocation detail. Commissioner Woodham requested “a one‑pager” explaining what each investment vehicle holds and why the city uses it; Rick Phillips and Nilesh Mehta offered to draft a short summary comparing the vehicles. Phillips described the difference discussed in the presentation: CAMP generally runs shorter duration with more credit exposure and shorter maturities, while LAIF is longer duration with less credit exposure. The transcript shows inconsistent spellings of those program names; staff agreed to use standardized names and provide plain‑language explanations in future reports.

Solomon and the finance director explained how interest is allocated monthly based on actual fund balances. The report notes an approximate target allocation of 60% of interest to the general fund (the presentation listed a general‑fund contribution of about $1,019,465 year‑to‑date) and a budgeted target contribution of $1,500,000 for the fiscal year. Finance staff said monthly allocation reports reflect actuals and that a coordinated quarterly allocation report — showing which funds “own” what percentage or dollar amount of the total portfolio — can be provided.

After discussion, Commissioner Bridal moved to accept and file the treasurer’s report; the motion was seconded and commissioners voted in favor. The clerk recorded the action as “accept and file.”

The meeting also handled routine business: the commission approved the agenda and consent calendar (minutes and affidavit of posting), kept two letters to the city council on the agenda for future drafting, recorded no public comment, and adjourned.

The commission asked staff to return a short glossary of investment vehicles and a quarterly allocation report showing per‑fund ownership of assets and interest allocations; staff agreed to coordinate with finance for the next quarterly packet.