Company: NAZ
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form Type: N-CSR
Source: 0001193125-25-269465
Chunk: 195

Company: NUVEEN ARIZONA QUALITY MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
Filing Date: 2025-11-06
Form: N-CSR
Chunk 195
---
 common assets and excluding investment-related costs such as the costs of leverage and taxes) meeting certain expense screening criteria adopted by the Board when compared to its Expense Universe and management’s commentary as to the factors contributing to each such fund’s relative net total expense ratio. The Board also considered, in relevant part, a fund’s management fee in light of its performance history with particular focus on any fund identified as having a higher management fee and/or expense ratio compared to peers coupled with experiencing a period of challenged performance. In their review, the Board Members considered the methodology Broadridge employed to establish its Expense Universe. The Board further considered that differences between the applicable Fund and its Expense Universe, as well as changes to the composition of the Expense Universe from year to year, may limit some of the value of the comparative data. The Board Members also considered that it can be difficult to compare management fees among funds with peers as there are variations in the services that are included for the fees paid. The Board Members took these limitations and differences into account when reviewing comparative peer data.

| 234 |

In addition, although the Board reviewed net total expense ratio both including and excluding investment-related expenses (e.g., leverage costs), as applicable, the Board considered that leverage expenses will vary across funds and peers because of differences in the forms and terms of leverage employed by the respective fund and therefore generally considered each closed-end fund’s net total expense ratio and fees excluding investment-related costs and taxes. The Board also considered that the use of leverage may create a conflict of interest for the respective Adviser and Sub-Adviser given the increase of assets from leverage upon which an advisory or sub-advisory fee is based but also considered the impact of leverage on the fund’s return. The Board Members considered, however, that the Adviser and Sub-Adviser would seek to manage the potential conflict by recommending to the Board to leverage the applicable fund or increase such leverage when the respective Fund Adviser has determined that such action would be in the best interests of the respective fund and its common shareholders and by periodically reviewing with the Board the fund’s performance and the impact of the use of leverage on that performance. With respect to the Sub-Adviser, the Board also considered, among other things, the sub-advisory fee schedule paid to the Sub-Adviser in light of the sub-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