My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0808
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0808
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:32:14 PM
Creation date
8/23/2016 9:26:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/8/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, August 8, 2016 <br />Page 18 <br />foundation as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and requirements that <br />any grantee of those funds do work benefiting the city. After all these years, Ms. <br />Pust advised that the foundation had determined it was best for the foundation's <br />name to better reflect its purpose and history. Since grantees of these funds also <br />serve the area school districts (Roseville and Moundsview), Ms. Pust noted those <br />districts were not specific to the Roseville city limits, but didn't need to be ex- <br />cluded due to their geographical areas, thus the name change to Roseville "Ar- <br />ea...". <br />Ms. Pust highlighted four specific main points for lan�ua e changes in the MOU. <br />Ms. Pust noted the history of using a Donor Advisory Board (DAB) as a sub- <br />committee since 1991, with one amendment before now, to hear applications to <br />the foundation from nonprofits, and then making a recommendation to the full <br />body. While this process may have worked well for the last twenty years, and <br />with tax code requirements during that time, it required two different community <br />bodies to make decisions about who would be funded. However, Ms. Pust noted <br />over time, the federal tax code had gotten simpler, and no longer required a DAB. <br />Ms. Pust profusely thanked those members serving on the DAB, with some of the <br />original members serving until their retirement over the last 2-3 years; and ad- <br />vised they had been given first right of refusal to be elected to serve on the RACF. <br />In reviewing the contract language, with a DAB no longer needed, and the refer- <br />enced Roseville Chamber of Commerce no longer in existence, Ms. Pust noted the <br />interest in updating the MOU (contract) accordingly and based on how nonprofit <br />corporations run now compared to when the contract was originally drafted in <br />1991. At that point, Ms. Pust noted it was then suggested those changes be fol- <br />lowed through by the city and its ordinance language as well. <br />Regarding financial restrictions, Ms. Pust noted there were some areas with tight- <br />er governance now and some less so, but the contract always stated a certain <br />amount for disbursement above and beyond the permanent endowment. Howev- <br />er, Ms. Pust noted some of that language was vague and the foundation struggled <br />with their ability to give out 50%, but if investments were poor, that requirement <br />didn't need to be followed. Ms. Pust noted that language had now been clarified <br />with what the city's original intent had been, plus 75% of interest earnings. While <br />the endowment fund may take a hit depending on interest earnings, Ms. Pust <br />opined that was fine, as through the generosity of the community and great finan- <br />cial stewardship of the RACF, the endowment fund was just under $1 million. <br />Ms. Pust noted the most important goal remained to get the money out to other <br />nonprofits in the community. <br />Ms. Pust noted that one item written to provide more flexibility was that the <br />RACF could charge the city for its services. While the contract always allowed <br />for that, even though it was a more complex administration fee, Ms. Pust noted <br />the contract now stated the RACF could charge no more than 3% for an admin- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.