Jump to content

Just Wondering What % of OFSC Club/District Groomers are Parked


bbakernbay

Recommended Posts

In so far as mileage per groomer, the Rapp Report arrived at an average of 137km per groomer. By the time the BoG got through with their analysis the numbers will range from a low of 65km per groomer to a high of 185km per groomer once the 5 yr plan is fully implemented. Those numbers were arrived at based on the majic 2 weeks of data from Feb 2014.

 

As far as money following the snow, MOTS does provide more funding to areas with higher grooming needs. But like Wild Bill said there are issues with the process. Because MOTS uses current season data to determine the funding earned by any given district, the actual amount earned is not known until the final reconcilliation on May 31. To provide interim funding the BoG uses forecasts of trail and grooming data to establish the Dec/Jan/Feb payments. Back in the fall each District was provided a forecast of estimated equalization payments based on their 4 yr average of trails/grooming data. That data has been used right up through the January payment with no attempt to adjust the forecasted grooming hours. This has resulted in Districts receiving too much (most of the southern districts) and some district not receiving enough (most of the northern districts). Yes this will all come out in the wash in May but district have fuel and wages to pay now. Hopefully they all have sufficient working capital/lines of credit to get them through the season. SoupKids, this is why your district, and a lot of others, had to pay money back last year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think overall MOTS is a step forward from the old system we have. If you look what District 5 and 9 are doing, all districts can do this, no problem. The reducing of the groomer fleet, yes I think we could save on groomers. Also I think I that it's unreasonable what MOTS is doing to take the 2 weeks from a couple of years ago and keep using that as "standard hours". I think the "standard hours" need to be re-calculated every year so that we come to an average what makes sense.  As example if MOTS used the grooming hours if the first 2 weeks of February 2017, District 5 had no or almost no hours. Again the amount of groomers need to be recalculated every year. Also I think it makes sense to keep 1-2 spare groomers in every district.

Moving groomers around will be less necessary if every district has 1-2 spare groomers. 

In my opinion to say and replace a groomer after 10 years or 5000 hours also that rule doesn't make sense. There are lots of groomers in Ontario, older then 10 years and very reliable. The killer of the new groomers is the yearly amortization, average $15-20,000 a year while the old groomers have less then $5,000 a year. So does the new groomer need $10-15,000 less maintenance?

In MOTS, the clubs will get paid for every grooming hour. So the districts/clubs with low hours need to pay back to the Ofsc and the Districts/clubs with lots of hours will get more money, a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know where the monies paid back went ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soupkids said:

I would like to know where the monies paid back went ??

The monies returned to the OFSC last year ended up in the EQ fund. As they reported in their YE financial statements they had a surplus of $3.2M. At the July BoG meeting they removed $2.6M and placed it in General Reserves. It was ultimately used to fund the groomer purchases this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎20‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 7:34 PM, Viperules700 said:

Why not, thought a percentage of money from the south goes into a pot and gets moved to where it is needed the most? Sounds like I need to buy permits from north and central regions next winter then.

Been doing this since I started back to sledding.

Some of these clubs work pretty hard to entertain guests, some of whom ride like they're never going to return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, manotickmike said:

Been doing this since I started back to sledding.

Some of these clubs work pretty hard to entertain guests, some of whom ride like they're never going to return.

If you're am right, 30% of the permit price goes to the Club/District where you bought the permit. The other 70% goes to the OFSC and most goes to the Equalization Fund...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Greggie said:

If you're am right, 30% of the permit price goes to the Club/District where you bought the permit. The other 70% goes to the OFSC and most goes to the Equalization Fund...

But the Club doesn't keep the 30% if they don't generate sufficient grooming hours to equal the 30%.  We found that out the hard way a few years ago.

 

They get their per km amount for signage, maintenance, etc. and also 10% for Administration.

 

Buying Whete You Ride is no guarantee the $$$ stay there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbakernbay said:

But the Club doesn't keep the 30% if they don't generate sufficient grooming hours to equal the 30%.  We found that out the hard way a few years ago.

 

They get their per km amount for signage, maintenance, etc. and also 10% for Administration.

 

Buying Whete You Ride is no guarantee the $$$ stay there.

Brian,

 

as as far as I know, the Ofsc can't take the 30%. It can be a District rule?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Greggie said:

Brian,

 

as as far as I know, the Ofsc can't take the 30%. It can be a District rule?

 

What you said is what I understood from previous AGM's when FFC was introduced.

 

We were told that was an incentive for Clubs to continue to promote Trail Permit sales which our Club does in a big way.  Keeping 30% of the gross was supposed to be guaranteed I thought.

 

Our former District Treasurer was quite emphatic and showed me the method by which some of this 30% can be clawed back if you don't groom sufficiently to meet the target average.  Whether this was an administrative revision by OFSC I don't know.

 

In these weather circumstances it seems to me that if you don't groom you shouldn't keep 30% of the gross.

 

Hopefully, Big Pete will confirm or deny how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

What you said is what I understood from previous AGM's when FFC was introduced.

 

We were told that was an incentive for Clubs to continue to promote Trail Permit sales which our Club does in a big way.  Keeping 30% of the gross was supposed to be guaranteed I thought.

 

Our former District Treasurer was quite emphatic and showed me the method by which some of this 30% can be clawed back if you don't groom sufficiently to meet the target average.  Whether this was an administrative revision by OFSC I don't know.

 

In these weather circumstances it seems to me that if you don't groom you shouldn't keep 30% of the gross.

 

Hopefully, Big Pete will confirm or deny how it works.

Brian, your former Treasurer did not understand the working of FFC and Equalization correctly. I will explain in a couple of steps. When FFC was first introduced the club got 30% of permit sales off the top. Even if they did not turn a track or pound a picket. There was no mechanism in FFC for anybody to claw that back. The variable component of club funding comes from Equalization. Equalization as we all know is dependent on 4 things, Km of Trails, Hrs Grooming, Admin and Net Permit Revenue (aka the 30%). A clubs Eq payment was calculated as Standard Cost Allowance - Net Permit Revenue = Eq Pyt. So if Standard Cost Allowances are greater than Net Permit Revenue you get Equalization. If they are less than Net Permit Revenue you get zero Equlaiztion. But you still get the all of your Net Permit Revenue (aka the 30%). 

 

With the introduction of MOTS, the construct changes. In the above scenario the club has accountability for permit revenues. Under MOTS and 2 level accountability, the permit accountability moves to the District. So the District will continue to get the 30% no mater what happens. From the club perspective the 30% of permit sales was generated from permits sold under your clubs name but the money is at the District and the club has no direct claim on it. I wil use real life example to illustrate. District 1 is composed of 22 clubs in 15 PSEs. We have not converted to MOTS so each PSE is accountable for its permit revenue. When the OFSC sent the sales revenue in Nov/Dec/Jan each club was paid their 30% share. The funds basically flowed through the District to the PSEs. To contrast I will use District 9 which is being used as one of the examples of MOTS in action. (As an FYI we had the senior team from D-9 attend the D-1 meeting in January to explain how things work there).  So D-9 is 3 big associations and 10 independent clubs (total of 29 clubs if I recall correctly). The entire 30% of Gross Permit Sales goes into the District pot. In addition the Equalization money would go into the pot as well. From the pot the clubs are funded based on budgets established by their Trails and Grooming Committees.. There is no correlation between the permit revenue from any particular club and the funding they receive.  

 

So to answer yours and Greggie's question, the answer is , It Depends.

 

Both systems have their respective pros and cons and I am not going to hijack the thread with another discussion on the merits of MOTS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-02-08 at 10:25 PM, bbakernbay said:

Agreed that Floating Costs are major impediment and that is one area where OFSC Head Office could get involved.  Maybe someone in the float business could offer an estimated km cost of floating a Groomer say 400 Kms.

 

I also think that OFSC should develop a boilerplate Agreement that could be used or amended by the parties involved or at least a Checklist that needs to be followed to ensure that everything is covered in advance.  Pre delivery inspection, inspection on receipt and thereafter, Who operates, who gets grooming hours, who pays for fuel, what happens if damage occurs, major mechanical failure, other payments and the list goes on.

 

The average snowmobilers primarily cares about trail conditions and has no understanding or interest in all the intricacies of moving groomers between Clubs or Associations.

I asked a friend who has floated a groomer from one district to another and there are many factors such as the size of the equipment, is the drag also being shipped, etc. He estimated at about $140 per hour. I think this cost doesn't include overnight accommodations or food. I think in his case he floated it in one day and returned home.

 

jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grover_yyz said:

I asked a friend who has floated a groomer from one district to another and there are many factors such as the size of the equipment, is the drag also being shipped, etc. He estimated at about $140 per hour. I think this cost doesn't include overnight accommodations or food. I think in his case he floated it in one day and returned home.

 

jerry

 

Wow... I would have thought it would be a lot more than that when you see automotive labour rates hitting $120 / $130 per hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, grover_yyz said:

I asked a friend who has floated a groomer from one district to another and there are many factors such as the size of the equipment, is the drag also being shipped, etc. He estimated at about $140 per hour. I think this cost doesn't include overnight accommodations or food. I think in his case he floated it in one day and returned home.

 

jerry

wow the OFSC only pays just under 70 per hour to groom 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, catinental couch said:

Sure they do Bill but remember who is paying the insurance. Any trucker or trucking company has to buy their own insurance.

Same for automotive service shops O2..... or any other commercial business.

I know that all too well. I know the mechanic isn't getting that rate. There are so many other costs to come out of that. Hydro, rent, heat, the accountant, insurance and so much more. That's why I thought the float costs may have been even higher than mentioned 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run heavy equipment for a living and $140/hr is fair price for a wagon ride. A tri axle dump truck is $80-90/hr in the GTA.

 But wow! only $70 hr for the groomers? Bill does that include the operator wage? And yes i realize some are volunteers.  

Bulldozers with an operator in the seat get way more per hour than that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this. The Kenworth that my youngest son used to drive was a tri drive with a 600hp Cummins. With a drop deck float, a Jeep, and a hydraulic tandem tail axle with an excavator on board the gross weight was in excess if 190,000 pounds. His average fuel consumption for the day was in excess of one litre per kilometre. Round figure diesel fuel at one dollar per litre and the fuel costs alone are $100.00 per hour. Guess who isn't getting rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...