Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants outline differences among Colorado, Illinois and Connecticut partnership options
Summary
AKF Consulting told Nevada trustees that Colorado’s partnership is fully documented and could launch faster, Connecticut’s agreement is pending, and Illinois would adapt an ABLE-based model — factors that affect speed, decision-making roles and fees.
Andrea Feirstein of AKF Consulting summarized the three RFI responses the board received and identified four high-level considerations: the partnership structure, Nevada’s role, cost, and speed to implement.
"What's the structure? What's the role? What's the cost and how quickly can we get this done?" Feirstein asked, then walked trustees through the packet comparisons. She characterized Colorado’s framework as in place and fastest to implement, Connecticut as having a term sheet in development, and Illinois as having an experience base in ABLE accounts though its Auto IRA framework would require more formation.
Board members pressed on the practical implications: how partner-state voting rights would work, whether investments would be identical across partners, and whether Nevada could preserve required statutory account features. Feirstein and Deputy Attorney General Nicole N. Ting both said those details would be negotiated in implementing agreements and that any partnership must comply with Nevada law.
Treasurer Conine noted the cost advantage of partnership scale: larger combined assets can trigger fee breakpoints sooner, potentially lowering participant costs. The board asked staff to keep the comparison updated as more state data becomes available and to include Colorado in Nevada’s internal charting for future review.
