Build a Better Public Sector Retirement PlanPublic sector entities increasingly recognize that sponsoring a non-ERISA plan does not exempt them from fiduciary liabilities. In fact, many states including MRPA’s home state of Florida specifically cite ERISA fiduciary language in statutes governing oversight of public sector retirement plans. MRPA can help. We serve government 401(a) and 457(b) plans totaling over $1 Billion in assets, including multiple counties, cities, Sheriff’s offices and special districts. We are honored to be amoung the very small handfull of consulting firms to be specifically certified by the Centre for Fiduciary Excellence® (CEFEX®) for "non-ERISA fiduciary services for governmental entities". We pride ourselves on simplifying retirement plan complexities while communicating with our clients in practical terms. We help you navigate the maze of retirement plan responsibilities and implement fiduciary best practices that keep your plan focused on building better futures for your employees.
Questions our Clients Ask:
- What fiduciary responsibilities do we have in a non-ERISA plan?
- How do we compare fees when they are buried in the investments?
- Will you help us document our plan oversight and maintain committee meeting minutes?
- Is it better to offer multiple 457(b) providers or just one?
- If we don't make any investment decisions, do we still have fiduciary liability?
- How do our retirement plans compare to other public sector entities?
- How many funds should we include in the plans?
- 49% reduction in total plan costs, with a contractually capped recordkeeper fee
- Best-practice fiduciary oversight with a thoroughly documented audit trail
- Plan governance and co-fiduciary support from MRPA
- Carefully-monitored menu of low-cost, highly-rated investments
- Levelized fee assessment so each participant pays only their fair share of plan costs
- Focused employee education and administration by a single provider
This mid-sized Florida city was concerned about their fiduciary responsibilities for the city’s 457(b) and 401(a) plans. The program utilized three recordkeepers with proprietary fund menus, unclear fee structures, and overlapping employee education. Those responsible for the plan questioned whether this approach was good enough for their employees. They wanted to create a best-of-breed retirement program, starting with an assessment of how they stacked up against industry best practices.