JOA Concern 1: Use of Retained Earnings

CCAs have been providing Park Board staff and Commissioners with feedback, input and direction on what will create a JOA that works for the Park Board and CCAs. Unfortunately, the Park Board does not appear to be listening. A report recently put out by Park Board staff on the JOA not does accurately reflect the current situation.

Recently, 12 CCAs wrote a letter to Commissioners outlining their concerns with the agreement.

You can find the Park Board report here.

We want to explain what the specific issues are and why CCAs are asking Park Board Commissioners to have the Park Board lawyer and CCA lawyer review the agreement.

Please read this series of blog posts on each of the six key concerns. 



Original CCA Concern: Section 14.3(e) presents two problems. First, the phrase “Subject to the foregoing” prior to limiting how Retained Earnings are to be spent seems to suggest that the funds kept as an operating contingency may be spent differently. Secondly the omission of “or otherwise in furtherance of the Association’s purposes as set out in its constitution” makes this section unreasonably restrictive. As independent societies, we have fiduciary obligations to our members and to our organizations, financial and otherwise. We need to be able to respond to the needs of our organizations and our communities. We ask that 14.3 (e) be amended.

Park Board Response: The requirement for CCAs to spend all surplus revenue within five years, which was included in the first drafts of the JOA, has been removed. We are only requesting that you create a plan for reinvesting surplus revenue back into the system, keep the plan updated and make it available to the public. As we stated in a letter sent to you on June 12, 2017, we are always open to discussing your plans for reinvesting any retained earnings you may have back into the system.

CCA Response to Park Board: The response from Park Board evades the initial concern, which is that we would like to codify in the agreement our ability to spend our funds in furtherance of our mandates. As it stands, the language is too restrictive, and while we appreciate Park Board staff’s openness to discussing our plans, this gives us little comfort.