More On The Snow

[Big Pete]

SJ, you would think it to be a reasonable assumption but it's not the case. The MOTS documents clearly state that any expenses related to equipment that is not listed on the District Equipment list are not eligible for reimbursement from permit dollars So if you have an atv that the club fundraised for and you choose not to list it on the District Equipment list and say you have flat tire and it's a couple of hundred dollars to replace it. The standardized rules say it's not eligible for reimbursement from permit dollars (which by the way all reside at the district). Maybe the only way around it would be to have a rental agreement between the District and the Club. Of course that opens up a whole new can of worms. Your club now has rental income. You have expenses related to that income. So what are the CRA implications. What are the HST implications. Keep in Mind that the District is now accountable to MTO for permit dollars. So they are going to need proper invoicing to substantiate their disbursement to the club.

Just more unanswered questions.

[Wildman]

Wildman,

It seems that you don't like me and for sure don't like to hear what I am saying on this forum. As I said earlier, I am telling what is going on and if you don't want to hear it, please don't reply with comments what makes no sense. Others like to read me comments...

Aug 10th, u posted

As I said earlier, MOST will pass with between 65-80% majority. So that means we need to work with MOST

this before any or most districts have even had the presentation, I haven't seen where there are early voting poll's, so how can anyone accurately predict such a percentage this early? If there was valid proof the vote would be this, at this point before AGM, why waste time and resources with the presentation? ????? I'll tell you why, because this is your speculation.

[Big Pete]

Soup, thank you for taking the time to review the MOTS docs in detail. It's the only way to make informed decisions. I have my opinions, you will have yours and there will be numerous other opinions. I am good with that. That's what stimulates good debate and will result in an outcome that is acceptable to everyone.

[Wildman]

Soup, thank you for taking the time to review the MOTS docs in detail. It's the only way to make informed decisions. I have my opinions, you will have yours and there will be numerous other opinions. I am good with that. That's what stimulates good debate and will result in an outcome that is acceptable to everyone.

this will be the problem, will every club executive do this, understand it and make a decision and vote accordingly? ???? Thats the biggest question right now, or fear.

[Big Pete]

I can only hope they do.

[Panther340]

Sure can compare them. The trail permit is a MTO permit that the province controls. Therefore a government program. Try changing the permit price without the Minister of Transportation signing off on that change. Won't happen

Then let's make all the other government recreational programs totally user pay as well.

Ice rinks, public pools, tennis courts, boat launch ramps and parking provided by townships and so much more. Lots of people pay for them and will never use them. You want to play hockey on a public rink how about paying the real cost for ice time

 

Wow retirement has senility setting in..........I hope the neighbor kids don't walk on your lawn............but in short and to keep from diverting to far from topic .......your comparing apples and oranges , you know as well as I do that a slight increase in permit fees would solve 90% of the problem OFSC is facing. Instead if they chose your selfish method they would pi$$ of thousands and thousands of non trail riders and the Anglers and Trappers associations and even some general public. .............And stop dissing Northern Ontario , truth be known it was Northern Ontario resources that helped build the south in the last century , and without reasonable infrastructure, the resources would of gone no where and the hydro power (and uranium) would of been frozen in time. heck even the roads to bring your snowmachine north as global warming hits more and more would be lacking so consider chilling out and enjoy ALL of Ontario for what is required to access it.

[sledjunk]

SJ, you would think it to be a reasonable assumption but it's not the case. The MOTS documents clearly state that any expenses related to equipment that is not listed on the District Equipment list are not eligible for reimbursement from permit dollars So if you have an atv that the club fundraised for and you choose not to list it on the District Equipment list and say you have flat tire and it's a couple of hundred dollars to replace it. The standardized rules say it's not eligible for reimbursement from permit dollars (which by the way all reside at the district). Maybe the only way around it would be to have a rental agreement between the District and the Club. Of course that opens up a whole new can of worms. Your club now has rental income. You have expenses related to that income. So what are the CRA implications. What are the HST implications. Keep in Mind that the District is now accountable to MTO for permit dollars. So they are going to need proper invoicing to substantiate their disbursement to the club.

Just more unanswered questions.

I did understand that they will not fix the tire, and therefore I was suggesting something similar to a rental arrangement / per hour.  The club would have that income and that should cover their costs or most of them.  From the CRA aspect, it should be fairly simple as the club is still NFP, but possibly no longer one classed as receiving government support as permit dollars will not be received by the club.  The club is using the rental income to provide the services that are required under their mandate and therefore a mute point.  HST probably would not be a factor unless the income reaches the threshold.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

I have read the documents released at the end of July but just received my AGM package yesterday.  Another few days worth of very dry reading.

[soupkids]

I did understand that they will not fix the tire, and therefore I was suggesting something similar to a rental arrangement / per hour.  The club would have that income and that should cover their costs or most of them.  From the CRA aspect, it should be fairly simple as the club is still NFP, but possibly no longer one classed as receiving government support as permit dollars will not be received by the club.  The club is using the rental income to provide the services that are required under their mandate and therefore a mute point.  HST probably would not be a factor unless the income reaches the threshold.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

I have read the documents released at the end of July but just received my AGM package yesterday.  Another few days worth of very dry reading.

After reading the whole MOTS document, some sections a few times here is my take on the bold.

Club x transfers all equipment except ATV to the district, any expenses related to are funded by the club depending on the NFP status of the club.

I think some equipment may still be allowed to be held by the club if the NFP status is forgiven, just what I'm not sure, MOTS says chainsaws smaller equipment, not sure where a sled or ATV will fit into MOTS.

 

MOTS as a whole is a good thing, lots of great thinking that is achievable in every district.

things that must be done are produce a timeline to implement MOTS, from what I read everything has to be done this year, which ultimately I'm afraid will doom snowmobiling by pissing off just about everybody.

 

NFP stuff should be information only just as a heads up incase the gov't gets around to enacting the bill, and yes each club has 5 years to comply with the legislation.

on top of this the MOTS document clearly stats that if the club has an event that they need separate insurance for the must remain a chapter (NFP), basically stay the way you are now.

 

District realignment, yes, there are definitely some challenges with this one but nothing that can't be overcome by staying friendly with each other.

Grooming equipment transferred to district and club boundaries as far as grooming goes dissolved, yes 

 

anything to do with this NFP bill, toss the baby out with the  bath water on this one, it may never ever be a concern..

 

In short there is not a whole lot different in MOTS than we are currently doing but now.

[Wildman]

one of my concerns, right now clubs are their own incorporation, that are part of a federation that follows strict policies on how to spend permit money. Yes, the groomers are in the clubs incorporation, which is in a roundabout way property of the federation, same with the permit accounts. Under the current operations, the only way any part of the federation can seize assets of a member club is if they do not meet all the requirements of being a member club, if the club is meeting all the requirements, any part of the federation would have a heck of a legal battle trying to seize assets. Now I don't know how things work once the district has , lets say ownership of assets, can the BOG or EXCOM  just have access to what ever they see fit? I don't have time to look into this right now, and it is a concern, and I would like to see paper documentation supporting the legal rights of the districts assets and how they are controlled by the federation. I see a big window for "potential" corruption.

 

   Lets face it, it was well documented, FFC was brought about for many reasons, Mike Clewer's opening statement was, there is 10m dollars in district and club bank accounts that is not reaching the snow.........most of that is still there, and I have yet to meet a bean counter that doesn't want access to all the beans. Now is this good or bad for the sport? depending on how it is looked at, it could be either. I don't think it is unreasonable for a strong club with a couple good groomers to have anywhere from 50 to 200k in a permit account, if they are operating properly they will be building a fund to replace groomers, have reserves for repairing groomers and so on. That Money is always getting to the snow, just not all of it every year. There is no successful company that uses all their money every year. The way I interpret what is going on, is a way of having control of all the assets whenever the main governing bodies of the federation want it. I don't believe this would always be healthy for the sport. Now if the governing bodies for the federation don't have any easier access to assets from the district as they do the clubs, it's no big deal. Does anyone know or have time to find out and get all the supporting propaganda???

[Wildman]

I want to clarify, I don't believe anyone has malicious intent within the federation, I don't want to see a system that has limited room for corruption turn into a system that has a huge opportunity for corruption.

 

Having districts control incoming money and all clubs of the district working together makes sense for the sport, I think it is to early to hand all the assets to the district, that is what I am getting at.  

[bbakernbay]

It would now seem that there is much less or in fact no incentive for any Club or Association to market themselves in order to sell Trail Permits as now all Permit Dollars are dispensed to the District after the OFSC deductions for Admin, groomer replacement, insurance, etc. The Clubs used to get their funds based upon grooming hours and Kms of trails.

Our Club marketed aggressively to try and encourage prospective Trail Permit Purchaser's to select our Club when completing their online transaction.

That appears to not be necessary now and in fact the 30% was clawed back in any event.

Will this coming years online only allow Purchaser's to select their District of choice or will all clubs still be there to choose.

Will their choice even matter?

Is "Buy Where You Ride" still applicable?

When the financial incentive was there to market your Club/Association there would be energetic promotion to convince Snowmobilers to buy a Trail Permit from their favorite Club.

If that marketing is no longer needed will there be less overall permits sold?

[jrhz06]

I ride in Ontario. I've volunteered in the past and have offered to assist a couple of clubs. Buy where you ride by club never really made sense to me as there were clubs that sold lots of permits but didn't have many open trails and vice versa. Maybe its time to think of new approaches to marketing permit sales.

[Wildbill]

It would now seem that there is much less or in fact no incentive for any Club or Association to market themselves in order to sell Trail Permits as now all Permit Dollars are dispensed to the District after the OFSC deductions for Admin, groomer replacement, insurance, etc. The Clubs used to get their funds based upon grooming hours and Kms of trails.

Our Club marketed aggressively to try and encourage prospective Trail Permit Purchaser's to select our Club when completing their online transaction.

That appears to not be necessary now and in fact the 30% was clawed back in any event.

Will this coming years online only allow Purchaser's to select their District of choice or will all clubs still be there to choose.

Will their choice even matter?

Is "Buy Where You Ride" still applicable?

When the financial incentive was there to market your Club/Association there would be energetic promotion to convince Snowmobilers to buy a Trail Permit from their favorite Club.

If that marketing is no longer needed will there be less overall permits sold?

And there in is one of the failures. Poor to non existent enforcement with the demise of STOP the gutting of trail patrol and no incentive that benefits the selling club to make the voluntold feel like the efforts are worth the hassle. Then combine the daily pass and the last poor season I think that revenues will drop dramatically . 

[sledjunk]

Having read all of the AGM package, I must disagree with you, Blake.

 

While we need to make changes, I do not believe this plan is the right one at this time, for the following reasons.

 

1. The scope of this plan has increased exponentially with the drastic restructuring of the districts, forcing clubs to amalgamate and learn to work with other clubs and people they may not have even met previously.

 

2. Much of the information in the report is skewed or incomplete.  For example, the permit sales comparison includes the multi day sales (10,602) which are individual days vs 3- and 7-day (3,395).  This look real good when you compare percentages, but the reality is that even if ALL of the 3395 were 3 day, we are basically flat.  When you look at the total permits sold, we are down more than the 5% shown in the Annual Report.  It is typical that the you have to read between the lines in these reports to get at the truth.  The report forecasts a 6% increase in the number of permits sold for next year with no explanation of what type or revenue base they will be.  I just love the fact that they refer to the Try our Trails permits as 'sold'.  Another example of this is where the charts compare district operations and grooming fleet information.  All of the information is based upon the current district structure, but there is no readjustment of the figures for the new district structure.  As all of this information is coming from the club level, it would have been very easy to rejig the report to the new structures.

 

3. The plan has a section (4.03)devoted to the implementation for the clubs that become unincorporated, but only has 1 paragraph (4.02) for the incorporated clubs.

 

4. The implementation plan is too rushed and at the wrong time of the year!  As I have said before, clubs are being forced to merge and amalgamate with organizations and people that they have no history with and they have no choice in the matter!  While we are member club in the federation, we are still separate incorporated entities and should not be forced into anything! 

[sledjunk]

I ride in Ontario. I've volunteered in the past and have offered to assist a couple of clubs. Buy where you ride by club never really made sense to me as there were clubs that sold lots of permits but didn't have many open trails and vice versa. Maybe its time to think of new approaches to marketing permit sales.

 

But who will do the marketing???  The clubs, who have nothing to gain?

 

I think these are good questions.

 

Clearly the trend is toward viewing the permit as a "province wide" permit, and with a financial equalization structure that tries to direct money to where it is needed for grooming, "buying where you ride" doesn't flow money to any particular club chosen by the purchaser.

 

It seems that the intent is to try and make the trails equally awesome throughout the province.

 

Having said that, a club may still be interested in marketing to sledders to try and attract them to an area based on food, lodging, staging areas, events, being sledder friendly, availability of good snow conditions, etc.

While the intent may be to make the trails equal throughout the province, that is simply a pipe dream.  The differences in weather, snowfall and terrain make that impossible.  Instead, I fear that the result will be to kill the motivation that drives the volunteers that have brought us this far. 

[jrhz06]

But who will do the marketing???  The clubs, who have nothing to gain?

 

While the intent may be to make the trails equal throughout the province, that is simply a pipe dream.  The differences in weather, snowfall and terrain make that impossible.  Instead, I fear that the result will be to kill the motivation that drives the volunteers that have brought us this far. 

 

The districts could do the marketing.  

 

Not all volunteers volunteer their time because of the club, some of us spend our time to try to improve the general sledding experience. If MOTS goes through then I guess that I'll be volunteering my time to a larger organization, the district. Some volunteers, such as myself, stopped volunteering as I got fed up with the short sighted "club only" and the "district is the enemy" attitude. I only recently started to volunteer again but it was due to attitude/executive changes at the club which is now working with the district. Yes some voluteers will leave but others may join. I'm trying to keep an open mind about these changes, some of which will be positive and others which may not be.

[Nith Valley Sledder]

There are a lot of benefits for the online only permit sale and the efficiencies it brings. One of the biggest downfalls of this is the disconnect it promotes between the clubs and potential new volunteers. When the clubs marketed and sold the permit they had a body face to face and the opportunity to get them out to a club function and down the slippery slope to club membership.

Too many clubs are suffering from burnout, aging membership and other life commitments keeping volunteers from taking the necessary executive positionsummary to keep the club functioning. It seems MOTS will give the clubs an opportunity to relieve themselves of some of the administrative BS. But at what cost? We are a grassroots organization. If the clubs go by the wayside who will setup and maintain the trail system? The next couple years will be difficult for the sport.

[slomo]

 

Having said that, a club may still be interested in marketing to sledders to try and attract them to an area based on food, lodging, staging areas, events, being sledder friendly, availability of good snow conditions, etc.

 

Involving various Chambers of Commerce, municipal governments, and Ontario tourism and transport in one large sledding organization would be a good place to start. Get Nutter and Viperules 700 together to figure out how to transfer administration from the OFSC. After having read the entire thread, I am confused.

[Nutter]

Involving various Chambers of Commerce, municipal governments, and Ontario tourism and transport in one large sledding organization would be a good place to start. Get Nutter and Viperules 700 together to figure out how to transfer administration from the OFSC. After having read the entire thread, I am confused.

 

 

Care to further elaborate on what you're saying, and why Viperules and myself should do it and not you ? 

[bbakernbay]

Involving various Chambers of Commerce, municipal governments, and Ontario tourism and transport in one large sledding organization would be a good place to start. Get Nutter and Viperules 700 together to figure out how to transfer administration from the OFSC. After having read the entire thread, I am confused.

MOTS is going to increase committee work at the District level by 3X or more and most Volunteers hate that aspect of organized snowmobiling.

To suggest involving all those others groups is beyond comprehension, it is an impossible task. Sorry slomo.

At least MOTS involves 100% Snowmobilers and look at the difficulty we are having.

[soupkids]

Having read all of the AGM package, I must disagree with you, Blake.

 

While we need to make changes, I do not believe this plan is the right one at this time, for the following reasons.

 

1. The scope of this plan has increased exponentially with the drastic restructuring of the districts, forcing clubs to amalgamate and learn to work with other clubs and people they may not have even met previously.

 

2. Much of the information in the report is skewed or incomplete.  For example, the permit sales comparison includes the multi day sales (10,602) which are individual days vs 3- and 7-day (3,395).  This look real good when you compare percentages, but the reality is that even if ALL of the 3395 were 3 day, we are basically flat.  When you look at the total permits sold, we are down more than the 5% shown in the Annual Report.  It is typical that the you have to read between the lines in these reports to get at the truth.  The report forecasts a 6% increase in the number of permits sold for next year with no explanation of what type or revenue base they will be.  I just love the fact that they refer to the Try our Trails permits as 'sold'.  Another example of this is where the charts compare district operations and grooming fleet information.  All of the information is based upon the current district structure, but there is no readjustment of the figures for the new district structure.  As all of this information is coming from the club level, it would have been very easy to rejig the report to the new structures.

 

3. The plan has a section (4.03)devoted to the implementation for the clubs that become unincorporated, but only has 1 paragraph (4.02) for the incorporated clubs.

 

4. The implementation plan is too rushed and at the wrong time of the year!  As I have said before, clubs are being forced to merge and amalgamate with organizations and people that they have no history with and they have no choice in the matter!  While we are member club in the federation, we are still separate incorporated entities and should not be forced into anything! 

I was away for the weekend and getting to this a little late but here goes.

 

1. The scope of this plan has increased exponentially with the drastic restructuring of the districts, forcing clubs to amalgamate and learn to work with other clubs and people they may not have even met previously.

The clubs DO NOT have to amalgamate, each club is still responsible for their trails and making sure that they are ready to be groomed when the snow flies

 

3. The plan has a section (4.03)devoted to the implementation for the clubs that become unincorporated, but only has 1 paragraph (4.02) for the incorporated clubs.

If your club remains incorporated NOTHING changes for your club other than permit and grooming stuff.

 

4. The implementation plan is too rushed and at the wrong time of the year!  As I have said before, clubs are being forced to merge and amalgamate with organizations and people that they have no history with and they have no choice in the matter!  While we are member club in the federation, we are still separate incorporated entities and should not be forced into anything! 

​ The rushed part I do agree with completely, it a lot to swallow in a very tight timeline. No club are NOT being forced to amalgamate or merge and if you don't know who is in the member clubs around you there is a serious problem someplace.

[sledjunk]

I was away for the weekend and getting to this a little late but here goes.

 

1. The scope of this plan has increased exponentially with the drastic restructuring of the districts, forcing clubs to amalgamate and learn to work with other clubs and people they may not have even met previously.

The clubs DO NOT have to amalgamate, each club is still responsible for their trails and making sure that they are ready to be groomed when the snow flies

 

OK, possibly 'amalgamate' was the wrong word.  What word would you use when every cent you spend has to be approved by another level (district) and subject to negotiation.  Add to this the consideration that clubs are moved into districts that have not worked together before.

 

3. The plan has a section (4.03)devoted to the implementation for the clubs that become unincorporated, but only has 1 paragraph (4.02) for the incorporated clubs.

If your club remains incorporated NOTHING changes for your club other than permit and grooming stuff.

 

Really?  What about the club bank accounts, revenue stream, etc.  Are the clubs still covered by D & O insurance?  Do the clubs have to change their year end's to match the OFSC?  What is involved with that and who will cover the costs?

 

4. The implementation plan is too rushed and at the wrong time of the year!  As I have said before, clubs are being forced to merge and amalgamate with organizations and people that they have no history with and they have no choice in the matter!  While we are member club in the federation, we are still separate incorporated entities and should not be forced into anything! 

​ The rushed part I do agree with completely, it a lot to swallow in a very tight timeline. No club are NOT being forced to amalgamate or merge and if you don't know who is in the member clubs around you there is a serious problem someplace.

 

In our case we are moved into a new district formed by the combination of two districts, two grooming associations, and four or five previously standalone clubs.  Personally, I do not object to the new district alignment, but it would make sense to have a period of time to meet as a new district before all hell breaks loose.

[soupkids]

 

I was away for the weekend and getting to this a little late but here goes.

 

1. The scope of this plan has increased exponentially with the drastic restructuring of the districts, forcing clubs to amalgamate and learn to work with other clubs and people they may not have even met previously.

The clubs DO NOT have to amalgamate, each club is still responsible for their trails and making sure that they are ready to be groomed when the snow flies

 

OK, possibly 'amalgamate' was the wrong word.  What word would you use when every cent you spend has to be approved by another level (district) and subject to negotiation.  Add to this the consideration that clubs are moved into districts that have not worked together before.

Not if still incorporated, which I suspect 95% of the clubs will stay due to the fact that if you have an event that you need insurance for you stay as is.

The biggest thing is all the groomers are looked after by the district so the clubs will not need large $$ anymore. no fuel, repairs, wages anything.

 

3. The plan has a section (4.03)devoted to the implementation for the clubs that become unincorporated, but only has 1 paragraph (4.02) for the incorporated clubs.

If your club remains incorporated NOTHING changes for your club other than permit and grooming stuff.

 

Really?  What about the club bank accounts, revenue stream, etc.  Are the clubs still covered by D & O insurance?  Do the clubs have to change their year end's to match the OFSC?  What is involved with that and who will cover the costs?

Bank accounts will be a tough thing to figure out if you permit revenues and fundraising have always been dumped into one account, not sure what your mean by D&O Ins, but I think the answer is yes, incorporated or not club is still covered but the OFSC policy as far as the year end, is it not just a simple bylaw change ?? (I have no idea)

 

4. The implementation plan is too rushed and at the wrong time of the year!  As I have said before, clubs are being forced to merge and amalgamate with organizations and people that they have no history with and they have no choice in the matter!  While we are member club in the federation, we are still separate incorporated entities and should not be forced into anything! 

​ The rushed part I do agree with completely, it a lot to swallow in a very tight timeline. No club are NOT being forced to amalgamate or merge and if you don't know who is in the member clubs around you there is a serious problem someplace.

 

In our case we are moved into a new district formed by the combination of two districts, two grooming associations, and four or five previously standalone clubs.  Personally, I do not object to the new district alignment, but it would make sense to have a period of time to meet as a new district before all hell breaks loose.

Yes you are right on the last part but having said that at least a portion of your new district has participated in shared groomers and should be able to easily explain if not show the other clubs the benefit of the plan.

 

BTW I am not for the whole MOTS plan, some of it very good, some of it should be tossed out !!!!

keep in mind I come from an area that has operated about 90% close to the MOTS plan for 20+ years already.

does it work 100% of the time, hell no, sometime it doesn't work at all, but on the average it works pretty dam good.

[sledjunk]

I am not sure that all grooming associations work exactly the same, and this plan seems to go much further than simply grooming associations.  AFAIK, grooming associations did not take all of the club assets.

[slomo]

MOTS is going to increase committee work at the District level by 3X or more and most Volunteers hate that aspect of organized snowmobiling.

To suggest involving all those others groups is beyond comprehension, it is an impossible task. Sorry slomo.

 

 

Ontario Tourism, MTO and MNR pick up the extra work. Seems to function well in Quebec.