Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treasury Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions bank concentration and transfer accounting in midyear packet
Summary
Members asked why the city's cash appears concentrated (>50%) at one bank and why packet numbers differ from audit totals; staff explained operational reasons for temporary concentration, collateralization of deposits and that audit/budget differences are largely due to transfers being shown differently.
Council members raised concerns that the midyear packet showed a concentration of cash in a single institution that appears to exceed the city's 50% policy and asked for a bank‑by‑bank breakdown and returns. Staff explained the operational cause: the primary operating bank holds funds for day‑to‑day accounts‑payable and payroll timing, which can temporarily push the balance past 50% of deposits. Staff said deposits are fully collateralized and that Byline currently returned roughly 3.97% on cash and that most invested assets are held at other institutions.
Members also flagged substantial differences between packet figures and the audit. Staff said a major driver of the discrepancy is presentation: the packet treated transfers as revenues for readability while the audit treats them as 'other financing sources/uses.' Staff identified interfund transfers of roughly $10 million as a principal difference and agreed to adjust presentation and reconcile with the audit for committee review.
Committee members requested a bank‑level breakdown of cash balances, the current returns being earned on cash and investments, and a clearer packet presentation that matches audit conventions where helpful for public understanding.
