Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - September 14, 2017Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 1 of 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 MEETING MINUTES I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Crystal Cove Conference Room, Bay 2D, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council Member Diane Dixon (Chair), Council Member Will O'Neill, Committee Member Patti Gorczyca, Committee Member Joe Stapleton, and Committee Member Larry Tucker ABSENT: Mayor Kevin Muldoon and Committee Member William Collopy (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager Carol Jacobs, Finance Director/Treasurer Dan Matusiewicz, Deputy Director, Finance Steve Montano, Budget Manager Susan Giangrande, Senior Budget Analyst Shannon Espinoza, Budget Analyst Tam Ho, Budget Analyst Katherine Warnke-Carpenter, and Administrative Specialist to the Finance Director Marlene Burns MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Planning Commissioner Lauren Kleiman and Mr. Jim Mosher OUTSIDE ENTITIES: John Bartel of Bartel Associates, LLC and Terry McCall of Portfolio Services for Government, LLC III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Dixon opened public comments. Jim Mosher spoke regarding citizen appointees to the Committee and reported City Council has extended their terms of service to June 30, 2018. In terms of arrangements regarding the association with Council Members, the Harbor Commission was told to discontinue those arrangements, due to concerns by the City Manager and City Attorney relative to serial meetings. Mr. Mosher reported the City budget was adopted three months ago, but is not available on the City's website. Additionally, he referenced a previous City Council Closed Session Item B, regarding overtime compensation, the possibility of it being miscalculated and the potential employees may be due back overtime pay that may affect the budget substantially. He noted he was impressed by the open budget overview. Finance Director Dan Matusiewicz reported the City's new year budget is included in the City's portal but printed summaries have not been generated. The live budget is available through Socrata in the City's portal. Council Member Will O'Neill confirmed that terms for Finance Committee Members have been extended. He made a distinction between the Harbor Commission and the Finance Committee relative to City Council arrangements and acknowledged that a matter was agendized for discussion at Closed Session concerning the Flores issue but noted he is unable to comment, as it is a Closed Session matter. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 2 of 11 At Chair Dixon's request, Finance Director Matusiewicz explained the case came out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Flores v. City of San Gabriel) and that it was a surprising change of direction across the State of California. He stated staff believes the Court overreached, in terms of assessed liability, the City has accrued a liability that management believes to be sufficient to cover the potential liability, but it is still unclear how the case will be ultimately resolved. Chair Dixon closed public comments. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file. Chair Dixon noted corrections to the minutes as submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher. Committee Member Gorczyca thanked Mr. Mosher for the corrections he submitted to the minutes and agreed when the minutes indicate, "in response to someone's question," the point made is lost. MOTION: Committee Member Gorczyca moved, and Council Member O'Neill seconded, to approve the June 29, 2017, Finance Committee Minutes, as corrected. The motion carried, unanimously. V. CURRENT BUSINESS A. INVESTMENT ADVISOR CONTRACT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Summary: Staff respectfully requests that the Finance Committee reconsider its recommendation to award contracts to two investment advisors and award a contract solely to Chandler Asset Management (Chandler) on the basis that the City's invested assets will remain sufficiently diverse and safe under one investment advisor; the use of one investment advisor is efficient, less costly and appropriate for a City of Newport Beach's size; and Chandler manages assets for several agencies with assets in excess of $100 million and has shown greater responsiveness to the City's needs over the years. Recommended Actions: (1) Retain the services of Chandler Asset Management as the City's sole investment advisor and enter into a five-year contract based on the firm's proposal for an annual savings of more than $25,000 per year as compared to a two-investment advisor arrangement and (2) Terminate the existing investment management contract with PFM Asset Management. Finance Director Matusiewicz provided background information including the extensive Request for Proposals (RFP) process to determine the number of financial advisors the City should have and negotiated fees. Subsequently, the matter was placed on hold and is being presented again for the Committee's consideration. He introduced and deferred to Terry McCall of Portfolio Services for Government, LLC, for a presentation. Terry McCall, Portfolio Services for Government, LLC, provided information about his company and listed his experience. He addressed the scope of his work for the City of Newport Beach, including the RFP process for Financial Advisors. Mr. McCall commented on the respondents, evaluation, ranking, interview and selection of candidates. Committee Member Gorczyca asked regarding the presumptions made in terms of the applicant's proposed fees and the assumed level of assets under management when comparing fees. Mr. McCall noted the original assumption was based on 185 million assets under management. He added applicants had the ability to negotiate fees and could restate their proposals. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 3 of 11 Finance Director Matusiewicz explained one of the reason staff likes to discuss flexibility in the fee schedule is the City would like to compensate investment advisors at the same level, when the City employs more than one investment advisor. Mr. McCall addressed public trust, assets under management, and reported both chosen firms are reliable, have municipal and public agency accounts, and do good work. They both do some private business, but primarily focus on the public sector. Discussion followed regarding the number of accounts added by Chandler Asset Management in the last two years. Mr. McCall addressed account closures for Chandler and PFM and overall performance in the short- and long-term. Committee Member Gorczyca commented on the two different company profiles and stated when comparing the two, there cannot be a direct application. Mr. McCall agreed, noted some differences in the two and commented on the accounts of each. He expressed challenges in comparing apples-to-apples, but reported that he and staff felt the City only needs one investment advisor. Committee Member Tucker asked regarding the advantage of having a five-year contract and Mr. McCall reported cities, counties and government typically do not want to extend contract terms for more than five years and prefer to go out to bid towards the end of a contract. Committee Member Tucker commented on the possibility of avoiding the RFP process and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported there is a thirty-day out clause on virtually all contracts. It is standard on most contracts except those requiring a large capital investment. Committee Member Gorczyca reported in her experience, she saw more contracts with two- or three-year terms and one-year renewal, after evaluation of benchmarks. Chair Dixon reported the Finance Committee gets monthly reports and reviews contracts once a year. Committee Member Tucker asked if the City would have to go through the RFP process if it chose to terminate the contract and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported bids are good for eighteen months and staff would terminate one and execute a new contract with another. Beyond eighteen months, the City would have to initiate an RFP process, which would take between four-to-five months, plus contracting. Committee Member Gorczyca noted that would be one advantage of having two advising entities, especially in terms of market and organizational changes. Mr. McCall stated in his experience, having one investment advisor worked well through various changes. Committee Member Gorczyca reported when there are changes, having two advisors would ensure uninterrupted service. Mr. McCall stated the possibility of that happening is slim. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated in such cases, the City could contract with an interim advisor on an emergency basis Mr. McCall stated the City would be better off using one advisor rather than two and supports staff recommendation to contract with Chandler. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 4 of 11 Chair Dixon reported the study was a year ago and asked whether anything had changed. Mr. McCall stated nothing has changed since then. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated that the City will still maintain a diversified portfolio, will have the opportunity to measure performance against benchmarks, and noted the strategies between both firms are similar. He addressed long-term returns in income and total returns for Chandler and PFM and noted they are neck-and-neck. Committee Member Stapleton commented on the possibility of over-diversification by having two firms. Finance Director Matusiewicz added there is not great risk in using only one firm, investment advisors do not hold the securities; the investments are held by the Bank of New York, registered in the City's name and investment advisors do not have access to them, other than how they invest them. The City independently monitors them on how they are invested. The City does not rely on information from advisors but rather directly from information that derives from its custodial bank, the Bank of New York. The City receives its market pricing on investments, independently from investment advisors, giving the ability to review three different pricing sources as well as securities' ratings and accounting and investment activities, which are reconciled, daily. He noted it is less efficient to have two investment advisors and reported staff has more flexibility working with one, in terms of strategies. He addressed the relative size of other cities compared to Newport Beach. In terms of flexibility, he reported, some of the City's reserves have a long investment horizon while others need to be very liquid, and because of recent opportunities to beat the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) returns, the City is pulling money out of its short-term portfolio and matching asset maturities with specific liabilities come due to improve performance at both ends of the spectrum. Chair Dixon asked regarding the source of the data and Finance Director Matusiewicz explained that most data is derived directly from the custody bank and analyzed through a third-party software product. He also made reference to a monthly conference call to review cash flow needs. Chair Dixon stated that requires staff to be intimately involved. Committee Member Stapleton asked regarding Chandler's responsiveness and Finance Director Matusiewicz explained they are more responsive and accessible than PFM. Brief discussion followed regarding pricing tiers. Chair Dixon noted the City has about $250 million total of which $180 million goes into two accounts and the difference goes to LAIF. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported staff is starting to look at alternatives to LAIF as part of the overall strategy. He stated staff thought it was streamlining operations and reducing costs and former Finance Committees wanted the City to reduce the number of investment advisors. Committee Member Stapleton noted servicing costs. He asked how decisions are implemented in terms of percentages to apply to the various investments; Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the contract's investment policy statement is the driving document. Council Member O'Neill stated this presentation changed his mind. Brief discussion followed regarding the City of Anaheim doing its own investing. Committee Member Tucker stated he accepts staff's recommendations but noted he is uniquely unqualified to comment on investment advisory matters, but it seems reasonable to him. He liked the fact that the City has a way to correct itself if it is determined it was heading in the wrong direction by a 30 day termination right. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 5 of 11 Committee Member Gorczyca reported the City of Newport Beach is a unique public agency, partly prompted by the Orange County bankruptcy, and has felt it important to have multiple investment advisors. She added PFM has had a relationship with the City for over 25 years. She noted diversification is important and having two advisors provides a built-in competition with incentives to perform. She addressed market changes and felt it important to have different sources of advice. Relative to servicing, PFM and Chandler have different business models but provide stability in terms of future changes in the market and circumstances. Committee Member Stapleton pointed out that by having one advisor, the City will save 20 percent of the total cost of the portfolio. He addressed benchmarking and stated it is all about asset allocation and noted it is almost impossible to compare two different firms. If it turns out that Chandler is not performing as agreed, he would rely on staff to initiate the thirty-day termination process. Chair Dixon opened public comments. Jim Mosher expressed agreement with the recommendation, especially if staff is comfortable and the City saves money. Chair Dixon closed public comments. Chair Dixon noted her past advocacy for two advisors but has changed her mind, based on performance and cost of service. She reported she was surprised at PFM's disinclination to negotiate fees, but in terms of performance and efficiency, she was comfortable with staff's due diligence and regular updating to keep the City on track. MOTION: Committee Member Stapleton moved, and seconded by Committee Member Tucker, to recommend that City Council (1) Retain the services of Chandler Asset Management as the City's sole investment advisor and enter into a five-year contract based on the firm's proposal for an annual savings of more than $25,000 per year as compared to a two-investment advisor arrangement and (2) Terminate the existing investment management contract with PFM Asset Management. The motion carried with Committee Member Gorczyca, opposed. B. REVIEW OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) VALUATION Summary: Staff will discuss the latest actuarial valuation, changes to actuarial assumptions, review investment returns, the potential impact of future rates, and the results of employee cost sharing. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported last year the City's unfunded liabilities ran in the $275 million range and this year it increased to $321 million. Staff estimated the change in discount rate is $16.5 million and there will be approximately $25 million as a credit forthcoming due to positive investment experience of 11.2 percent for fiscal year ended June 30, 2017. During 2017-2018, the City will pay $8.9 million more than the required payments, which should drive down principal. Looking forward to future discount rate reductions, he reported the target amount to payoff is about $324 million. Council Member O'Neill asked regarding revenue estimates and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported property taxes are great but staff has not yet reviewed the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which should be available after the summer, and sales taxes underperformed last year, but property taxes more than made up for the shortfall. He added this is an open discussion and he is not seeking any decision at this point. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 6 of 11 Committee Member Gorczyca noticed property tax bills have gone up steadily in the last three years, explained the rationale and stated the rate may be lower next year. Finance Director Matusiewicz pointed out the 2017-2018 property tax levies were already set based on January 1, 2017, market values which increase more than what had been projected. Regarding a comparison of prior numbers, Chair Dixon noted $25 million is the expected payment in 2018-2019. Finance Director Matusiewicz clarified that is the City's minimum, required payment. The 2017-2018 budget is $33.8 million. He stated that minimum payment will steadily ramp up well beyond $33.8 million and the intent is to get ahead of it. Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed things that play into CalPERS’ decisions and the Board is set to make many decisions by December 2017. He suggested proceeding with caution and noted the need to see the whole picture. Speculating, he indicated there is likely to be a lower inflation assumption and presumed it will offset the last phase of discount rate changes. Committee Member Tucker asked for clarification and Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the gross investment return less inflation will equates to the real rate of return. The current rate is 2.75 percent. John Bartel, Bartel Associates, LLC, added that all seven percent rates of return are not created equally and explained the calculations. Committee Member Tucker stated the Committee has not spent any time on how the City obligation is calculated; that is the actuarial number as to what the City's obligations are. That number has an inflation factor to keep the benefits constant. Mr. Bartel added it includes salary increases on which the benefits are based. He reported just because the actuarial staff makes a recommendation does not mean the CalPERS Board will approve it. He believed there is pressure on the Board to not increase the real rate of return from 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent. Chair Dixon commented on the inflation rate and noted the rate of return is a direct result of how the investment is managed by CalPERS. Mr. Bartel explained rate of return can be measured historically, adding that going forward, it is an assumption with two components including what the CalPERS Board thinks inflation will be and what they think they will earn, above inflation, in the long run. Chair Dixon noted it is subjective in terms of projecting future rate of return because of certain constraints imposed on their investment policy. Committee Member Gorczyca added it is also based on risk-taking, and there are many other factors influencing that number. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported last year he stated CalPERS may have overshot their mortality projection but warned that staff now believes they are unlikely to roll back the increase in mortality projections. Mr. Bartel opined that CalPERS staff spoke sooner than they should have and concluding that CalPERS will maintain a similar level of improvement. People are living longer and CalPERS is anticipating it and building that into their numbers. Finance Director Matusiewicz added that the previous increase to mortality assumption was already factored into their assumption losses and had hoped for relief if CalPERS were to roll it back, but it is not likely to happen now. Finance Director Matusiewicz said he anticipated that the City would be budgeting between $32 to $35 million towards unfunded liabilities in 2018-2019. Chair Dixon stated this is where the City's long-term financial planning tool will come into play because the City will be able to play with the numbers. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated this is only one of many options in the City's financial plan, along with other objectives for the City to meet in its long-term goals. He added there may an opportunity for the City to lower its minimum required contribution by taking credit for significant Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 7 of 11 positive investment gains credits sooner than later. Investment gains are normally amortized into the rate over a 30-year period. He noted there is a range of budget options to consider and suggested if the City were to continue a 15-year pace, the City could lower its payment to $33.1 million. He addressed Fresh Start, the effect of other discretionary payments and stated, excluding the Fresh Start base, the remaining bases may net to a credit position as of June 30, 17. He reported more discussions will ensue with the budget. Mr. Bartel reported his company's projections and opined the City should wait and see to determine what CalPERS will do and by the end of the calendar year, the City will have a better feel for the rate of return and what CalPERS will do. He highlighted Item No. 6 in the staff report and suggested the Finance Committee review it closely during a future Finance Committee meeting. The City's actions will revolve on what CalPERS is going to do, so presently it is all speculation. He addressed a CalPERS demographic experience study noting they have been quiet about it, they are not expecting any changes, and stated early retirements can be problematic. Chair Dixon stated they are problematic because they are on pension for longer. City Manager Dave Kiff commented on a conversation he had with a person running a large public safety agency who said they are actively recruiting immediate retirees because there are no good candidates coming in at the bottom level. Chair Dixon offered the scenario of a young person working for the Police Department for ten years and going to work for another CalPERS agency, at a higher salary. Mr. Bartel reported the City would be responsible for the benefit formula they received during the period they worked, for using the service that they worked. The compensation used to calculate that benefit is reciprocal. The City would still have a ten-year commitment, but at a higher salary. Mr. Bartel explained the City's liability is split between the participating agencies and the type level of benefit each agency had offered. Chair Dixon asked why the City of Newport Beach is financially responsible for the benefits at a higher salary rate than what was paid by the City. Mr. Bartel explained reciprocity exists to encourage movement from one agency to the next. Chair Dixon felt the taxpayers of Newport Beach should not be responsible for the pension of a past employee, making a fraction of what they ended up with. Mr. Bartel clarified the City would pay a portion of the benefit, based on the City's formula and based on the salary at retirement. City Manager Kiff reported the City assumes an employee will stay in Newport Beach and will make a progression through the steps of promotion, while it sets aside money. Chair Dixon opened public comments. Jim Mosher noted the City also hires people who have worked for other agencies. Chair Dixon closed public comments. Mr. Bartel suggested discussing the issue further at a future meeting. C. ENGAGING CALPERS Summary: The Chair will provide a brief oral update on her plans and recent activities to engage CalPERS staff and policymakers with the intent to influence future pension policies and practices. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 8 of 11 D. OPPOSITION LETTER TO CALPERS BOARD IMPOSED DIVESTMENT DIRECTIVES Summary: From time to time, the CalPERS Board imposes divestment directives on the CalPERS Investment Office to promote certain social objectives. Divestment directives can create enormous opportunity costs to the pension system at a time when the system, plan sponsors and plan participants cannot afford to compromise investment return. Recommended Action: With the Finance Committee's concurrence, staff will seek the support of the Mayor and Finance Committee Chair to urge the CalPERS Board to cease and reverse divestment directives that create artificial barriers for the Investment Office and lessen potential investment return. The foregoing items were heard concurrently. Chair Dixon provided an update on her trip to visit with the CalPERS Investment Committee staff and reported they are a highly-regarded group of experts and reported their recommendations will go to the Board where it changes from a financial recommendation to a political recommendation. She noted improvements in the market and explained the reason is that there are no constraints on those investments. However, CalPERS is dictated by legislative regulations that restrict certain investments for political and social correctness. The consequence is the approximate loss to the corpus of a CalPERS total investment is about $3 billion and growing; the gap is being met by California taxpayers. Mr. Bartel reported some would argue that the retirement system should not only focus on return, but also on social issues. He reported their job is to maximize investment return and when you focus on social issues, there is a backslash and noted it should be a transparent approach. Chair Dixon reported the Investment staff is looking for allies in the employer groups as well as the public employee associations. Mr. Bartel reported the reason the Investment staff are socially investing is because they are being directed to by the California Legislature, which takes its direction from bargaining groups. Chair Dixon reported Investment staff would like an advocate for pointing out they are not poor investment advisors and that they are being directed by the politically-appointed Board. Chair Dixon reported the group is organizing to increase presence before the Board to state the effects of their investment strategy. Committee Member Stapleton opined it is a great idea to be active. It was noted that socially-responsible funds are not cheap. Committee Member Gorczyca noted the importance of becoming engaged. Mr. Bartel stressed the importance of having realistic expectations. He reported there is one representative appointed to the Board by the Governor and addressed bargaining group representatives. He reported bargaining groups focus on short-term compensation. He agreed that the City should work closely with bargaining groups. Chair Dixon opened public comments. Jim Mosher commented on engaging stakeholders and on the targeted bullet points. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 9 of 11 Chair Dixon closed public comments. A suggestion was made to forward the letter to the City of Huntington Beach for their possible use. Committee Member Tucker suggested stating the City recommends that Council send out the letter and asking that all other Orange County cities support and co-sign it. MOTION: Committee Member Tucker moved, and seconded by Committee Member Stapleton, to direct staff to seek the support of the Mayor and Finance Committee Chair to urge the CalPERS Board to cease and reverse divestment directives that create artificial barriers for the Investment Office and lessen potential investment return. The motion carried, unanimously. Council Member O'Neill departed the meeting at this juncture (5:06 p.m.). E. LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING Summary: As another input to the City's Long Financial Planning model, staff will provide a brief demonstration of the "GovInvest" software tool that the City is using to assist in the modeling of long-term pension plan costs and liability projections. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Finance Director Matusiewicz demonstrated the pension liability forecasting software tool known as GovInvest. The software tool will be another tool for the City to model pension data using different discount and investment assumptions. Committee Member Gorczyca asked whether for long-term modeling, the City will use Mr. Bartel's projections and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported it will depend on where the City is but reported that GovInvest has actuaries on staff and their figures are good enough for budgeting and long-term financial planning. F. BONITA CANYON COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT UPDATE Summary: The City entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) in 1997 to finance certain road, park and school improvements associated with the Bonita Canyon development. The JPA board believes there is an opportunity to refinance outstanding bonds of the JPA on a current refunding basis to provide an economic benefit to the assessed property owners in excess of $2.5 million. The Committee will be provided a brief report summarizing the financing effort. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Finance Director Matusiewicz provided background noting the City has been a member of the JPA since 1998 and addressed the City's interest in the Community Facility’s District (CFD) including the site acquisition and construction of Bonita Canyon Park and certain road improvements. The City refinanced it once in 2012 and he reported typically the school districts drive the CFDs. Since there is a financial savings that meets the typical matrix for refinancing, staff recommends proceeding assuming the market metrics hold. Chair Dixon asked whether this is a line item the City pays and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported it will be a savings to property owners within the City. Committee Member Gorczyca asked staff to look at the Placement Agent fee and commented positively on this approach. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Chair Dixon asked about the Placement Agent fee and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported it was not covered in this memo, but would be included in the closing memorandum. G. BUDGET AMENDMENTS Summary: Receive and file a staff report on the budget amendments for the prior quarter. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Chair Dixon noted nothing extraordinary relative to the budget amendments. H. REVIEW OF FINANCE COMMITTEE WORKPLAN Summary: Staff will review with the Committee the agenda topics scheduled for the remainder of the calendar year. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported receiving one correction and stated the City wants a review of the City's insurance coverage and stated it will be placed on the December agenda. The City just finished contract negotiations for a risk-based reserve analysis and work should begin shortly. Committee Member Gorczyca asked regarding the broker's experience and capabilities and Finance Director Matusiewicz reported the City's insurance broker can explain the City's coverage most efficiently and can talk about the City's exposure. The reserve analysis will focus on the General Fund revenues and expenditures volatility. Chair Dixon asked whether this delays the Committee's discussion on reserves and Finance Director Matusiewicz responded not necessarily. He addressed respondents to the RFP and reported he will provide an update on the City's reserve analysis in November. Committee Member Gorczyca suggested the need for information on how reserves cross- collateralize. Committee Member Tucker noted the discussion should be mentioned on the December work plan. Brief discussion followed regarding Section 115 and Chair Dixon reported the Investment Committee at CalPERS is in support of creating 115 funds for the sole purpose of having a separate investment strategy. VI. FINANCE COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM) Chair Dixon reported the next meeting of the Finance Committee will include an investment performance review and a review of the City's debt policy. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported there will be a study session on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, to study the City's debt policies and direction is expected from Council as to the participation of the Finance Committee. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Finance Committee adjourned at 6:25 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Finance Committee on Thursday, October 12, 2017, at 3:00 p.m.