Try Our Trails

[02Sled]

18 minutes ago, Guy JR said:

Maybe I used the word road loosely but we are truck accessible before winter.  As a guy that is off trail most of the time on a sled, I can get by quite fine without a groomed trail.   

What about your friends without sleds that go up and those that have them but don't use them much? I think you would agree though that having the trail makes it much easier to get there.

[zoso]

21 hours ago, 02Sled said:

A tax credit is something that has come up in conversation before. The province with their well intended but ultimately disastrous Bill 100 recognized the importance of keeping the trails that Ontario has in place today. With that desire already there, an income tax credit for those who allow their land to be used is not an unreasonable stretch. It may however result in benefit inequities as varying land owners have varying income levels taxable at varying percentages.

 

So now... where is the OFSC on this? Are they lobbying the province for this? I am sure it would go a long way to happier land owners.

 

Is this something perhaps that could be considered at the municipal level instead regarding property taxes rather than at the provincial level on income taxes. Municipalities have varying rates for varying property types. i.e. Farm / Agricultural properties receive more favourable rates than others.  It is well known that snowmobilers contribute significantly to the winter prosperity of the communities where the trails are. It would be in the communities best interest to keep the trail there and the municipality to incentivise this. Perhaps the local clubs could lobby their local mayor and council that collect property taxes from landowners their trails are on.

 

Just give them a refundable 300 land use tax credit. Everyone gets 300, even if they pay zero taxes to the province, they get the refundable credit.

[Viperules700]

38 minutes ago, zoso said:

Just give them a refundable 300 land use tax credit. Everyone gets 300, even if they pay zero taxes to the province, they get the refundable credit.

Problem is province won't do that. Should be a credit for walking, hiking, snowmobile trail etc, any kind of land use really. Only issue is how do you determine credit amount, is it one amount per owner per property , per km of trail, per acre of land used etc. 

Maybe we just need to get some farmers involved in creating staging area's for us. They have lots of land, could clear out a field close to trail to park in for a day or week etc, for a fee, so they would be a benefit for them. 

 

[zoso]

1 hour ago, Viperules700 said:

Problem is province won't do that. Should be a credit for walking, hiking, snowmobile trail etc, any kind of land use really. Only issue is how do you determine credit amount, is it one amount per owner per property , per km of trail, per acre of land used etc. 

Maybe we just need to get some farmers involved in creating staging area's for us. They have lots of land, could clear out a field close to trail to park in for a day or week etc, for a fee, so they would be a benefit for them. 

 

Good idea. park and ride with a small fee.

 

[Crow]

1 hour ago, Viperules700 said:

 

Maybe we just need to get some farmers involved in creating staging area's for us. They have lots of land, could clear out a field close to trail to park in for a day or week etc, for a fee, so they would be a benefit for them. 

 

 

Ok, so now say this is your field. How much do you charge per day/week?

How much will it cost you to keep it cleared out, how often?

Guy gets stuck leaving late in the evening and is at your door asking if you can pull him out with your tractor.

Lots of good sledders, but let's not kid ourselves, I would imagine you would get tired of picking up garbage, oil jugs and beer cans. 

[02Sled]

6 minutes ago, Crow said:

 

 

Ok, so now say this is your field. How much do you charge per day/week?

How much will it cost you to keep it cleared out, how often?

Guy gets stuck leaving late in the evening and is at your door asking if you can pull him out with your tractor.

Lots of good sledders, but let's not kid ourselves, I would imagine you would get tired of picking up garbage, oil jugs and beer cans. 

And it opens up the liability aspect. As soon as you charge someone for something the level of care exercised by the person receiving the money goes up. Your insurer would need to be notified and your policy amended.

[Crow]

Thanks 02, I was thinking about insurance but forgot to mention it in my post.

[Big Pete]

Here is how I understand the whole landowner compensation issue. The occupiers liability act provides for “a willing assumption of risk” for permitted uses provided “NO” fee has been paid for the access. If permit fees are used to compensate a landowner for access then the liability equation changes dramatically. 

 

To me me that means the club/OFSC cannot compensate the landowner directly. 

 

But it what about this. The provincial tourism department was the driving force behind the Ontario Trails ACT aka Bill 100. What if they were to establish a budget for a property tax rebate for any land owner that allowed documented trails from certified trail organizations (OFSC would be 1). The trail organization would certify the trail on the land owners application. It would be subject to renewal every year. This would keep the landowner and the club in regular contact. And while the money would flow from the Tourism folks it would be as a direct result of the trail organization. The amount of the rebate could be scaleable depending on the trail. Did the Trails Act not provide for a classification system for trails. Perhaps that could be a starting point. 

 

Now on a previous poster commented about OFSC lobby tactics and the relative challenges that they may be facing. I would say if we are meeting resistance for member approved ideas (sustainable funding comes to mind) then the OFSC needs to be feeding that back to the members. The members could then be applying pressure from the bottom up via their elected MPP’s. Look at the pressure that was brought to bear on bill 100 when local clubs started raising alarms through their mpp. All of a sudden there are reassurances from the minister and various amendments to bill. What is this prov govt going to do if they started getting questions in the house regarding sustainable funding from opposition members as well as their own back benchers. Especially in an election year. Did anybody else hear the explanation on this years permit fee increase which was rolled back from the original submission. Govt only wanted a $10 increase going into an election. Sounds like an area that could be leveraged. What the clubs need is guidance on lobbying local govt and MPPs. Perhaps a briefing or strategy document could be provided. A “How To Lobby Effectively”. 

 

Lots of areas to advance the sport at the provincial level. It’s just given the state of affairs at the provincial office they are in no position to be doing anything like this right now. 

 

Perhaps the new Exec Director and Director of Corporate Operations can start to get things back in line. 

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

4 hours ago, zoso said:

Just give them a refundable 300 land use tax credit. Everyone gets 300, even if they pay zero taxes to the province, they get the refundable credit.

What happens when the land is rented out by the owner to a cash cropper. Both the land  owner and the renters' typically have to give the OK to the club to go through the field(s). The renter puts up with the crop damage if any. What do you propose to give them? The gov't at any level  wouldn't likely want to issue two tax credits for the same piece of land.

[02Sled]

9 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

What happens when the land is rented out by the owner to a cash cropper. Both the land  owner and the renters' typically have to give the OK to the club to go through the field(s). The renter puts up with the crop damage if any. What do you propose to give them? The gov't at any level  wouldn't likely want to issue two tax credits for the same piece of land.

There's only one person that gets and pays the one property tax bill so only one tax credit

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

6 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

There's only one person that gets and pays the one property tax bill so only one tax credit

Recipe for trail loss in farming area's.

[02Sled]

6 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Recipe for trail loss.

How do you give a property tax credit to someone who doesn't pay the property tax?

[Dave K]

Our club gives out a 2lb block of cheese to all our landowners as a Thank You/ Appreciation

[zoso]

39 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Recipe for trail loss in farming area's.

Well it is a hell of a lot more than any land owner gets from the province right now. not sure how the province providing a tax credit could ever cause a loss of trails. Can you explain that logic?

 

[coldfinger]

Gave out our land owner gifts today box of chocolates and work gloves . I,m a landowner that rents to a farmer l would get the tax credit he gets paid for crop damage . What I have come to believe in my years setting up trail is the farmers are great to deal with , the problems arise when some one from out of the area buys a property and  has no interest in  sleds  crossing their piece of paradise . History a box of candy and gloves means nothing to them .  However a tax rebate will at least get them to ponder the thought of  leaving the trail as is . Maybe .

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

For the farmland that I stake I have to get approvals for both the landowner and the land renter. We give both the landowner and the renter a pair of excellent work gloves each year. If the landowners get a tax credit, I think the renters are also going to expect something given that we have always given them the same things the property owners get and given that we often drive over their crops.

[02Sled]

That's a precedent you have set as a club. If a township decides to give a property tax credit for a trail that's all. A renter doesn't pay property tax. The township would be reducing the amount of revenue received from the landowner with a trail. Would you really expect them to give cash to someone who is not a resident who doesn't give them any revenue or money. It would be up to the landowner and renter to split the value if the landowner chose to. The landowner would already be getting a tax break as agricultural rates apply. Does the landowner share that with the renter. I just checked with a friend who rents out property for hay fields. He pays the taxes and they don't become part of the agreement. It's just X$ per acre

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

22 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

That's a precedent you have set as a club. If a township decides to give a property tax credit for a trail that's all. A renter doesn't pay property tax. The township would be reducing the amount of revenue received from the landowner with a trail. Would you really expect them to give cash to someone who is not a resident who doesn't give them any revenue or money. It would be up to the landowner and renter to split the value if the landowner chose to. The landowner would already be getting a tax break as agricultural rates apply. Does the landowner share that with the renter. I just checked with a friend who rents out property for hay fields. He pays the taxes and they don't become part of the agreement. It's just X$ per acre

I am aware of more than one club that does what I have described and yes it is a club choice to do that. Good business in my view. I personally don't think the Township should be involved in giving any "trail credit" to anyone.

The Ontario government through the MTO has the closest ties to the OFSC controlling the income of the OFSC all the while cashing in on the provincial road tax portion of all the sled fuel purchased as well as the provincial portion of the HST on virtually  everything we purchase for sledding (including food and accommodation taxes)all while giving a pitance in return. Lets not forget valtag fees as well.

I understand the reasoning that townships might have the upper hand on knowing who the landowner is.

The Wynnebag fiberals are taking alot of income from sledding so it is only fitting that they should be the ones paying any type of payment or credit for trail permissions on private land.

[Big Pussy]

02,

 

It's the renter that has his crop compromised, not the land owner.  Both must be in agreement.  The renter payed for the use of the land, the seeds, the cost of fuel and time for cultivation and planting.  He has the loss for the path of destroyed winter wheat from trenching out the seeds.  He should have the compensation.

 

BP

[02Sled]

55 minutes ago, Big Pussy said:

02,

 

It's the renter that has his crop compromised, not the land owner.  Both must be in agreement.  The renter payed for the use of the land, the seeds, the cost of fuel and time for cultivation and planting.  He has the loss for the path of destroyed winter wheat from trenching out the seeds.  He should have the compensation.

 

BP

In theory that makes sense but what is being discussed is a property tax credit. The renter doesn't pay property tax. The townships MAY if lobbied well be amenable to a property tax credit for landowners providing trails. Don't forget to be equitable that would be applicable to all recreational trails. The township isn't likely ever to give CASH to a renter after giving a property tax credit on already reduced agricultural property tax. That would be essentially double dipping for the same property. The township has a relationship with the landowner but nothing with the renter.

 

I'm speculating to some degree but thinking in terms of legal logic. There would be a land use permit (legal document) giving temporary seasonal rights to a specific route across the property. I believe it's 60 ft wide. There would also be a legal lease of the property for farming use that would also spell out details of what was being leased, periods, terms etc. It would only make sense that those documents wouldn't be in conflict with each other or the landowner could find themselves with a real mess.

[Yukon]

19 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

In theory that makes sense but what is being discussed is a property tax credit. The renter doesn't pay property tax. The townships MAY if lobbied well be amenable to a property tax credit for landowners providing trails. Don't forget to be equitable that would be applicable to all recreational trails. The township isn't likely ever to give CASH to a renter after giving a property tax credit on already reduced agricultural property tax. That would be essentially double dipping for the same property. The township has a relationship with the landowner but nothing with the renter.

 

I'm speculating to some degree but thinking in terms of legal logic. There would be a land use permit (legal document) giving temporary seasonal rights to a specific route across the property. I believe it's 60 ft wide. There would also be a legal lease of the property for farming use that would also spell out details of what was being leased, periods, terms etc. It would only make sense that those documents wouldn't be in conflict with each other or the landowner could find themselves with a real mess.

Just to add to the farmer vs the Renter. 

 

Crop rental could be covered under crop damage which I believe there is or was a fund covered under The environmental ofsc fund.  I believe it was barely used so it may not be available anymore...

[Wildbill]

35 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

In theory that makes sense but what is being discussed is a property tax credit. The renter doesn't pay property tax. The townships MAY if lobbied well be amenable to a property tax credit for landowners providing trails. Don't forget to be equitable that would be applicable to all recreational trails. The township isn't likely ever to give CASH to a renter after giving a property tax credit on already reduced agricultural property tax. That would be essentially double dipping for the same property. The township has a relationship with the landowner but nothing with the renter.

 

I'm speculating to some degree but thinking in terms of legal logic. There would be a land use permit (legal document) giving temporary seasonal rights to a specific route across the property. I believe it's 60 ft wide. There would also be a legal lease of the property for farming use that would also spell out details of what was being leased, periods, terms etc. It would only make sense that those documents wouldn't be in conflict with each other or the landowner could find themselves with a real mess.

our land use is with the owner in practice it is the owner that deals with the renter

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

43 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

n theory that makes sense but what is being discussed is a property tax credit. The renter doesn't pay property tax. The townships MAY if lobbied well be amenable to a property tax credit for landowners providing trails. Don't forget to be equitable that would be applicable to all recreational trails. The township isn't likely ever to give CASH to a renter after giving a property tax credit on already reduced agricultural property tax. That would be essentially double dipping for the same property. The township has a relationship with the landowner but nothing with the renter.

 

 I do not agree with a property tax credit because that would have to be funded by the municipality. The majority of the townships in rural Ontario are pretty strapped for cash now. If you can come up with a way for the provincial gov't. to give them more funding or to cut a cheque to the townships in the amount of the total tax credits issued at the time the tax payments I would be agreeable but I can't realistically see that happening.

With regard to your  speculation regarding legal documentation required, I'm a landowner with farmland rented out and a trail going across that rented land. I for one would not want to get involved in dealing with all that legal documentation nor would I want to pay my lawyer for his opinion of them or his expertise in creating the documents.

[02Sled]

11 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

 I do not agree with a property tax credit because that would have to be funded by the municipality. The majority of the townships in rural Ontario are pretty strapped for cash now. If you can come up with a way for the provincial gov't. to give them more funding or to cut a cheque to the townships in the amount of the total tax credits issued at the time the tax payments I would be agreeable but I can't realistically see that happening.

With regard to your  speculation regarding legal documentation required, I'm a landowner with farmland rented out and a trail going across that rented land. I for one would not want to get involved in dealing with all that legal documentation nor would I want to pay my lawyer for his opinion of them or his expertise in creating the documents.

So you don't have a lease with the people renting your property? In today's litigious world perhaps that may not be the most wise approach to afford yourself protection if that is the case.

 

I just think that the chances of getting a township to provide a property tax reduction for properties that provide trail access within their community are far better than getting something from the province. The province doesn't set the property tax rates. The municipality does. For the province to mandate such would be all inclusive across the province giving the township no choice in the matter.

 

What I propose would be the township providing a % reduction in the property tax the township collects from the property owner who has a trail on their property. The township would likely be keenly aware or could be made so of the financial benefits the trail brings to the community and their business owners.

 

I also strongly suspect that the councillors in the rural parts of Ontario are much more in touch with their electorate than the MPP is. In our township I know the mayor a number of the councillors and some of the township staff. Why,  because they are members of the community first and elected representatives second.

[Bigfish]

02, the ultimate approval for crossing fields here is with the renter! We have a number of absent owners from whom we have permission to use the land but only if the renter agrees.  If the owner insisted on allowing a trail across a renters land, he wouldn't be renting it any more.

I agree the province is the one to give the tax credit, not a chance the municipality would. Besides OFSC falls under the MTO jurisdiction.