Company: NMS
Filing Date: 2025-08-06
Form Type: N-CSR
Source: 0001193125-25-174309
Chunk: 118

Company: Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund
Filing Date: 2025-08-06
Form: N-CSR
Chunk 118
---
‑advisory services provided to the respective Fund. In its review, the Board considered that the compensation paid to the Sub‑Adviser is the responsibility of the Adviser, not the Funds. The Board’s considerations regarding the comparative fee data for each Fund are set forth below:

| • |     | The Massachusetts Fund: the Fund’s contractual management fee rate and net total expense ratio matched the Expense Universe median, and the actual management fee rate was slightly above (within 5 basis points) the Expense Universe median. In its review, the Board, however, also considered, among other things, the composition of the Expense Universe which was comprised of a small peer set with only two peers unaffiliated with Nuveen funds. |

| • |     | The Minnesota Fund: although the Fund’s net total expense ratio was above the Expense Universe median, the Fund’s contractual management fee rate matched the Expense Universe median and the actual management fee rate was slightly above (within 5 basis points) the Expense Universe median. In its review, the Board, however, also considered, among other things, the composition of the Expense Universe which was comprised of a small peer set with only two peers unaffiliated with Nuveen funds. |

| • |     | The Missouri Fund: although the Fund’s net total expense ratio was above the Expense Universe median, the Fund’s contractual management fee rate matched the Expense Universe median and the actual management fee rate was slightly above (within 5 basis points) the Expense Universe median. In its review, the Board, however, also considered, among other things, the composition of the Expense Universe which was comprised of a small peer set with only two peers unaffiliated with Nuveen funds. |

| • |     | The Virginia Fund: the Fund’s contractual management fee rate, actual management fee rate and net total expense ratio either matched or were below the Expense Universe median. In its review, the Board, however, also considered the composition of the Expense Universe which included only two peers unaffiliated with Nuveen funds. |

Based on its review of the information provided, the Board determined that each Fund’s management fees (as applicable) to a Fund Adviser were reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of services provided to the Fund. 106

| 2. | Comparisons with the Fees of Other Clients |

In evaluating the appropriateness of fees, the Board also considered that the Adviser, the Sub‑Adviser and/or their affiliate(s)