Findlay finance committee backs search for municipal investment adviser, sets reporting expectations
May 06, 2026 | Findlay City, Hancock County , Ohio
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Findlay City Finance Committee on May 5 directed the auditor to begin soliciting proposals for a state-registered investment advisory firm to assist with the city’s portfolio and provide continuity across future auditor administrations.
Committee members said the adviser should be experienced with municipal portfolios and produce transparent, regular reporting. "I've been an advocate of this from the very beginning, mostly from a consistency standpoint," the chair said, urging an adviser who can carry institutional knowledge through auditor transitions.
The auditor told the committee that Ohio law limits the pool of eligible advisers and that only a handful of firms regularly provide municipal investment advisory services. "It is very specialized and governed by ORC," the auditor said, noting the adviser must be registered with the state and experienced with government clients. He recommended a fee-based contract rather than a commission structure to remove incentive drivers that might bias investment choices.
On reporting, members asked for a concise monthly summary (one page) that satisfies legal monthly reporting requirements and for quarterly 15–20 minute check-ins, with a larger annual or biannual presentation to council. The auditor agreed to produce sample report formats — including a graphical year-to-date summary and an aggregated yield-to-maturity estimate — and to gather peer-city reporting examples.
Cost and timing were discussed: one committee member estimated that the vetting or proposal work could reach $75,000–$100,000, and the auditor said initial outreach did not require legislation but that any contract would. The committee set a tentative target for a recommendation by the August finance committee meeting, with flexibility to move the schedule if needed.
Next steps: the auditor will solicit sample reports from peer cities, draft RFP language reflecting the committee's preference for fee-based agreements and transition-capable firms, and return with a recommended timeline and candidate presentation before council.
The committee did not take a formal vote on a contract at the May 5 meeting; it directed the auditor to proceed with the RFP process and return with recommendations.
Committee members said the adviser should be experienced with municipal portfolios and produce transparent, regular reporting. "I've been an advocate of this from the very beginning, mostly from a consistency standpoint," the chair said, urging an adviser who can carry institutional knowledge through auditor transitions.
The auditor told the committee that Ohio law limits the pool of eligible advisers and that only a handful of firms regularly provide municipal investment advisory services. "It is very specialized and governed by ORC," the auditor said, noting the adviser must be registered with the state and experienced with government clients. He recommended a fee-based contract rather than a commission structure to remove incentive drivers that might bias investment choices.
On reporting, members asked for a concise monthly summary (one page) that satisfies legal monthly reporting requirements and for quarterly 15–20 minute check-ins, with a larger annual or biannual presentation to council. The auditor agreed to produce sample report formats — including a graphical year-to-date summary and an aggregated yield-to-maturity estimate — and to gather peer-city reporting examples.
Cost and timing were discussed: one committee member estimated that the vetting or proposal work could reach $75,000–$100,000, and the auditor said initial outreach did not require legislation but that any contract would. The committee set a tentative target for a recommendation by the August finance committee meeting, with flexibility to move the schedule if needed.
Next steps: the auditor will solicit sample reports from peer cities, draft RFP language reflecting the committee's preference for fee-based agreements and transition-capable firms, and return with a recommended timeline and candidate presentation before council.
The committee did not take a formal vote on a contract at the May 5 meeting; it directed the auditor to proceed with the RFP process and return with recommendations.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
