CC_Minutes_2016_0808 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 8, 2016 Page 18 foundation as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and requirements that any grantee of those funds do work benefiting the city. After all these years, Ms. Pust advised that the foundation had determined it was best for the foundation's name to better reflect its purpose and history. Since grantees of these funds also serve the area school districts (Roseville and Moundsview), Ms. Pust noted those districts were not specific to the Roseville city limits, but didn't need to be ex- cluded due to their geographical areas, thus the name change to Roseville "Ar- ea...". Ms. Pust highlighted four specific main points for lan�ua e changes in the MOU. Ms. Pust noted the history of using a Donor Advisory Board (DAB) as a sub- committee since 1991, with one amendment before now, to hear applications to the foundation from nonprofits, and then making a recommendation to the full body. While this process may have worked well for the last twenty years, and with tax code requirements during that time, it required two different community bodies to make decisions about who would be funded. However, Ms. Pust noted over time, the federal tax code had gotten simpler, and no longer required a DAB. Ms. Pust profusely thanked those members serving on the DAB, with some of the original members serving until their retirement over the last 2-3 years; and ad- vised they had been given first right of refusal to be elected to serve on the RACF. In reviewing the contract language, with a DAB no longer needed, and the refer- enced Roseville Chamber of Commerce no longer in existence, Ms. Pust noted the interest in updating the MOU (contract) accordingly and based on how nonprofit corporations run now compared to when the contract was originally drafted in 1991. At that point, Ms. Pust noted it was then suggested those changes be fol- lowed through by the city and its ordinance language as well. Regarding financial restrictions, Ms. Pust noted there were some areas with tight- er governance now and some less so, but the contract always stated a certain amount for disbursement above and beyond the permanent endowment. Howev- er, Ms. Pust noted some of that language was vague and the foundation struggled with their ability to give out 50%, but if investments were poor, that requirement didn't need to be followed. Ms. Pust noted that language had now been clarified with what the city's original intent had been, plus 75% of interest earnings. While the endowment fund may take a hit depending on interest earnings, Ms. Pust opined that was fine, as through the generosity of the community and great finan- cial stewardship of the RACF, the endowment fund was just under $1 million. Ms. Pust noted the most important goal remained to get the money out to other nonprofits in the community. Ms. Pust noted that one item written to provide more flexibility was that the RACF could charge the city for its services. While the contract always allowed for that, even though it was a more complex administration fee, Ms. Pust noted the contract now stated the RACF could charge no more than 3% for an admin-