Grooming funds....

[Big Pussy]

Checking off a "Club" when you buy a permit seems to me to be totally useless.  There was a time when clubs could not get 50 permits and would ask for us in the south to support them to keep them in the OFSC.  My reasoning is as follows;

 

1.) I bought 3 permits the last 2 years and selected 3 different clubs, 1 local, and 2 up north.  So there is no accuracy in counting the permits for a club because they are being allocated on a whim by the buyer.  Numbers are useless.  Buy where you ride has no bearing if you support a small club that you have never been to to try to keep them viable.

 

2.) The distribution of funds now has little or nothing to do with the number of permits sold or allocated to a club, and more to do with Km groomed from what I read here.

 

So what is the purpose of selecting a club ?  Has no bearing on anything.  I guess it makes us feel good.

 

BP

[bbakernbay]

9 hours ago, BruteMan said:

see that's the key the clubs are not getting the groomers based on KM of trails and ability to groom its still based off what club the permit buyer checks when buying a permit. which MOTS is translating into traffic on that clubs trails 

 

He explained it to me this way a fictional town is split between 2 clubs each club has 300 km of trails total permits sold in town for this example would equate to 4 groomers if the town split 50/50 each club has the resources to get 2 OFSC groomers on the trails but if the town swings 75/25 then one club gets 1 the other would get 2 (because of some threshold possibly the total KM of trails) and the rest disappears into the OFSC coffers)  

 

Now expand that providence wide where some riders in the south really like to ride in the north say Hearst if they all want to support the Hearst club then all those clubs in the south are not getting that support from their local riders but that rider that had that great ride in hearst so he checks off the hearst club might only ride 1 week a year up there and rides locally for the other 4 - 8 weeks the south is seen as not having as many riders and the north is.

 

Still seems a bit ass backwards and i think the whole which club you support part of the permits needs to go and they just track permits on a province wide purchases by home address. And look at either a trail counter system for traffic like MTO or total KM of trails clubs are working to decide things like groomers.

 

If this was the case we would still have a link from marathon to thunder bay but they are still a club centric system so if the clubs don't get enough support on the permit purchase the club is considered to low funded and OFSC drops them off the system regardless if they had 50 - 100k trail rides that year from all the other clubs pass on their system

Selecting a Club to purchase your Trail Permit From provides the Club with a very insignificant amount of $$ under MOTS and this is as it should be.

 

The $$$ Are allotted based upon the actual grooming hours carried out and to a much lesser degree on the amount of trail kilometres that are being groomed which is meant to cover signing and basic maintenance.

[bbakernbay]

10 hours ago, BruteMan said:

He explained it to me this way a fictional town is split between 2 clubs each club has 300 km of trails total permits sold in town for this example would equate to 4 groomers if the town split 50/50 each club has the resources to get 2 OFSC groomers on the trails but if the town swings 75/25 then one club gets 1 the other would get 2 (because of some threshold possibly the total KM of trails) and the rest disappears into the OFSC coffers)  

This is not correct.  Permits sold by a particular Club now creates very little revenue to that Club.

 

The $$$ go to the District which fund grooming operations on the basis of the actual amount of grooming hours and to a lesser extent on the kilometres and type of trails being groomed.

 

There is a lot of formulas used to take into account running averages so as to smooth out highs and lows from one year to another.

 

The one thing the OFSC needs to do is publicize in a clear and concise method as to how the grooming funds are allotted to each District and how the Districts are supposed to fund grooming.  This is probably one of the biggest mysteries to most and everyone should have a basic understanding of the funding.

 

Big Pete, a great contributor here on OC and a CPA, has the best understanding of the funding formula.  Hopefully he could chime in and explain the process in the simplest terms.

[Wyatt]

11 hours ago, stoney said:

The speed limit is more to do with insurance and controlling the costs as best as possible....like signage, training, etc.....

50KPH is rather slow, depending on where you are riding and your skill level......as already mentioned, at that speed, people would never be able to do the saddle bags trip they do.

Agree 100%.....enforcing a ski hill is easy, you need a chair lift to get back up, easy for the operator to pick up on what you have paid for or not paid for.

I think most will agree, enforcement is a major issue as it is now.....lets not try to make it even harder to do so or give people an excuse or avenue to cheat the system by not buying or riding when your day / night / weekday pass permits.

Doubtful....what it would likely encourage is people buying a cheaper pass with a limited window to ride, but ride as though they bought the premium pass with no limitations.

 

As for more enforcement, I know you are new, but there used to be enforcement done by clubs as well the OPP......that changed few years ago and it is not only done by the OPP...which when you think about it, going backwards in the sport..... 

If I am not mistaken, the Port Perry club bought a new groomer a few years ago and I thought they did it with money the club had raised over the years....if that is the case, how does ownership for that scenario work?

Great points, as noted I am new and obviously far far from an expert! Thanks for clarifying.

 

Wyatt

[02Sled]

11 hours ago, stoney said:

The speed limit is more to do with insurance and controlling the costs as best as possible....like signage, training, etc.....

50KPH is rather slow, depending on where you are riding and your skill level......as already mentioned, at that speed, people would never be able to do the saddle bags trip they do.

Agree 100%.....enforcing a ski hill is easy, you need a chair lift to get back up, easy for the operator to pick up on what you have paid for or not paid for.

I think most will agree, enforcement is a major issue as it is now.....lets not try to make it even harder to do so or give people an excuse or avenue to cheat the system by not buying or riding when your day / night / weekday pass permits.

Doubtful....what it would likely encourage is people buying a cheaper pass with a limited window to ride, but ride as though they bought the premium pass with no limitations.

 

As for more enforcement, I know you are new, but there used to be enforcement done by clubs as well the OPP......that changed few years ago and it is not only done by the OPP...which when you think about it, going backwards in the sport..... 

If I am not mistaken, the Port Perry club bought a new groomer a few years ago and I thought they did it with money the club had raised over the years....if that is the case, how does ownership for that scenario work?

Clubs still have Trail Patrol and can still issue a Notice Of Trespass and take that forward. There was the STOP program which has been cancelled. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of. The S.T.O.P. officers were out in conjunction with the OPP.

[Viperules700]

1 hour ago, 02Sled said:

Clubs still have Trail Patrol and can still issue a Notice Of Trespass and take that forward. There was the STOP program which has been cancelled. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of. The S.T.O.P. officers were out in conjunction with the OPP.

wity the way rules are even trail patrol isn't that effective. Do volunteers want to spend time in court testifying and at end the individual gets off a technicality. Rules need to be changed so if snowmobile gets caught on a trail with no permit, owner is responsible not rider. 

[bbakernbay]

Absolutely correct, the simplest and best solution.

 

Just like Red Light Cameras,

 

Charge goes against the Vehicle Owner.

 

Only need to get Registration Number, Date, time and location, possibly a photo and then email a form to local OPP for issuance of ticket.  

 

Let us empower our Trail Patrol to minimize Freeloaders and sell more Trail Permits as well by increased enforcement.

 

This is the time before Election to pressure the government.

 

We are not asking for $$$, only the authority to enforce the existing law on our trails.

 

The OFSC has government lobbyists on staff, give them a task to do or else the lobbyist is not useful nor required.

 

The Ontario Government is not supporting snowmobiling nor tourism, let’s hold their feet to the fire.

 

[Doo Dad]

1 hour ago, bbakernbay said:

Absolutely correct, the simplest and best solution.

 

Just like Red Light Cameras,

 

Charge goes against the Vehicle Owner.

 

Only need to get Registration Number, Date, time and location, possibly a photo and then email a form to local OPP for issuance of ticket.  

 

Let us empower our Trail Patrol to minimize Freeloaders and sell more Trail Permits as well by increased enforcement.

 

This is the time before Election to pressure the government.

 

We are not asking for $$$, only the authority to enforce the existing law on our trails.

 

The OFSC has government lobbyists on staff, give them a task to do or else the lobbyist is not useful nor required.

 

The Ontario Government is not supporting snowmobiling nor tourism, let’s hold their feet to the fire.

 

Same should apply to riding on closed trails.  Picture of the registration and location should get the owner a ticket in the mail.

[zoso]

4 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

This is not correct.  Permits sold by a particular Club now creates very little revenue to that Club.

 

The $$$ go to the District which fund grooming operations on the basis of the actual amount of grooming hours and to a lesser extent on the kilometres and type of trails being groomed.

 

There is a lot of formulas used to take into account running averages so as to smooth out highs and lows from one year to another.

 

The one thing the OFSC needs to do is publicize in a clear and concise method as to how the grooming funds are allotted to each District and how the Districts are supposed to fund grooming.  This is probably one of the biggest mysteries to most and everyone should have a basic understanding of the funding.

 

Big Pete, a great contributor here on OC and a CPA, has the best understanding of the funding formula.  Hopefully he could chime in and explain the process in the simplest terms.

Without any doubt Big Pete is the go to guy to get a clear understanding of how districts and clubs get funding. He has explained it in here before.  When he explains it anyone can grasp what he is saying. For that I thank him, as it is confusing at best and the more people you ask, the more different answers you will get. 

[zoso]

17 minutes ago, Doo Dad said:

Same should apply to riding on closed trails.  Picture of the registration and location should get the owner a ticket in the mail.

I just got in from 100km on closed trails.

[stoney]

4 hours ago, 02Sled said:

Clubs still have Trail Patrol and can still issue a Notice Of Trespass and take that forward. There was the STOP program which has been cancelled. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of. The S.T.O.P. officers were out in conjunction with the OPP.

Yes, that is what I was referring too.

And to be honest, even the trail patrol folks I used to see parked occasionally checking for permits, seem to have decreased since STOP has no longer been around.......all I see now are OPP.

3 hours ago, Viperules700 said:

wity the way rules are even trail patrol isn't that effective. Do volunteers want to spend time in court testifying and at end the individual gets off a technicality. Rules need to be changed so if snowmobile gets caught on a trail with no permit, owner is responsible not rider. 

I think it takes a certain kind of person to be that enforcer and then follow through with it.....which I am guessing are few and far between these days....

[stoney]

4 hours ago, Wyatt said:

Great points, as noted I am new and obviously far far from an expert! Thanks for clarifying.

 

Wyatt

You will learn a lot by either riding with others or on forums like this one!

[Wyatt]

2 hours ago, zoso said:

I just got in from 100km on closed trails.

So it's not "unacceptable" to ride on closed trails, is it just more like "ride at your own risk" ?

[02Sled]

21 minutes ago, Wyatt said:

So it's not "unacceptable" to ride on closed trails, is it just more like "ride at your own risk" ?

Not really... trails are closed for multiple reasons. Most trails from approximately Sudbury south are on private property. A landowner can revoke permission for us to ride on his private property at any time for any reason and result in closed trails. I have heard of one scenario where regardless of the amount of snow there is a landowner that doesn't want anyone on his property before Jan 2.

 

If you are driving your truck on a road that has been closed your vehicle insurance isn't valid if you get into an accident. I have heard that the same applies to your sled insurance since they essentially follow the same Ontario motor vehicle laws. I don't know how it would work out if it ended up in court but I don't want to be the guinea pig test case that gets in an accident on a closed trail and find out the insurance company denies my claim.

[zoso]

1 hour ago, 02Sled said:

Not really... trails are closed for multiple reasons. Most trails from approximately Sudbury south are on private property. A landowner can revoke permission for us to ride on his private property at any time for any reason and result in closed trails. I have heard of one scenario where regardless of the amount of snow there is a landowner that doesn't want anyone on his property before Jan 2.

 

If you are driving your truck on a road that has been closed your vehicle insurance isn't valid if you get into an accident. I have heard that the same applies to your sled insurance since they essentially follow the same Ontario motor vehicle laws. I don't know how it would work out if it ended up in court but I don't want to be the guinea pig test case that gets in an accident on a closed trail and find out the insurance company denies my claim.

As far as insurance is concerned, you are covered. It is fine to ride on closed trails if you are packing for the club. Call your local club first.

[BruteMan]

So attempting to steer this back to the Original Post about funding dry up mid season this year due to a awesome season and taking into consideration what i've learned from other posts and the club here. 

 

I think OFSC needs to lighten up the noose on the whole grooming / funding formats i mean the clubs depend a lot on volunteers and there's members that have equipment they can offer and want to offer to help the local clubs out at no cost to OFSC or the clubs this should be encouraged not discouraged if what i'm hearing the avg groomer rate is somewhere between $40 and $60 per hour of grooming some say the groomer is paid regardless if its volunteer or not some say the club is. so if a second "free" groomer is out there and even if OFSC / club needs to cover the liability insurance for the season on their property (trail network) that cost is far more insignificant then paying for the labour/equipment/fuel etc. if there is such a scenario i think it's in the best interest for the sport and the clubs to be able to take advantage of it.

 

It also appears that there has been some sort of "nest egg" of funds saved by OFSC during bad seasons no one seems to have a grasp on what that reserve is and OFSC not only are reducing the amount of groomers out there with MOTS (i.e. district 1 from 50 to 26) but they may or may not have dipped into the reserve funds to buy new groomers? what about all the sales income of the 24+ district 1 groomers that were sold off to surplus? 

 

I'm all for paying fair value for what's considered appropriate for reasonable and responsible care of our trails system. to say Ontario should be on Par with Quebec funding levels .... that's a bit aggressive you show me ontario trails south or east of north bay that even come close to the same as any trail in quebec and you'll gain my support. QC gets the snow and they have the mountains and forests to keep the snow where they put it 80% is crown land, no landowner issues or road running, they have a network of groomers that are always out and running with backup groomers at every shop were nowhere near that level of quality or quantity to say ON pass prices = QC. 

 

I think if OFSC gets transparent and shows the Average Joe more than a "postcard" image that says 80% goes to new groomers 20% to the clubs for grooming you may gain a lot more support were not all 3rd graders here most of us are mature and can read a budget tabulation to see costs and expenses and reserves. Get Transparent show my the income vs expense publicly, hell front page of the damn website and i'll support whatever price it costs me to run that trail network. keep us in the dark and feed us crap and we will continue to act like mushrooms. 

 

Just my 2c.

[Viperules700]

10 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Selecting a Club to purchase your Trail Permit From provides the Club with a very insignificant amount of $$ under MOTS and this is as it should be.

 

The $$$ Are allotted based upon the actual grooming hours carried out and to a much lesser degree on the amount of trail kilometres that are being groomed which is meant to cover signing and basic maintenance.

Is a three year rolling average still used or is it based on current year hours only? 

[02Sled]

12 minutes ago, zoso said:

As far as insurance is concerned, you are covered. It is fine to ride on closed trails if you are packing for the club. Call your local club first.

If your working as a volunteer for the club and listed as a volunteer you would indeed be protected under the OFSC policy however I strongly suspect your personal insurance policy may well say too bad. Like I mentioned I don't want to be the test case.

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

4 hours ago, zoso said:

I just got in from 100km on closed trails.

Not an intelligent statement to make without full explanation included on this or any other forum IMHO.

[Spiderman]

33 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

If your working as a volunteer for the club and listed as a volunteer you would indeed be protected under the OFSC policy however I strongly suspect your personal insurance policy may well say too bad. Like I mentioned I don't want to be the test case.

Your sled insurance is under an oap, show me where in there it states anything at all about open or closed trails? Or trails at all....

[bbakernbay]

1 hour ago, BruteMan said:

So attempting to steer this back to the Original Post about funding dry up mid season this year due to a awesome season and taking into consideration what i've learned from other posts and the club here. 

 

I think OFSC needs to lighten up the noose on the whole grooming / funding formats i mean the clubs depend a lot on volunteers and there's members that have equipment they can offer and want to offer to help the local clubs out at no cost to OFSC or the clubs this should be encouraged not discouraged if what i'm hearing the avg groomer rate is somewhere between $40 and $60 per hour of grooming some say the groomer is paid regardless if its volunteer or not some say the club is. so if a second "free" groomer is out there and even if OFSC / club needs to cover the liability insurance for the season on their property (trail network) that cost is far more insignificant then paying for the labour/equipment/fuel etc. if there is such a scenario i think it's in the best interest for the sport and the clubs to be able to take advantage of it.

 

It also appears that there has been some sort of "nest egg" of funds saved by OFSC during bad seasons no one seems to have a grasp on what that reserve is and OFSC not only are reducing the amount of groomers out there with MOTS (i.e. district 1 from 50 to 26) but they may or may not have dipped into the reserve funds to buy new groomers? what about all the sales income of the 24+ district 1 groomers that were sold off to surplus? 

 

I'm all for paying fair value for what's considered appropriate for reasonable and responsible care of our trails system. to say Ontario should be on Par with Quebec funding levels .... that's a bit aggressive you show me ontario trails south or east of north bay that even come close to the same as any trail in quebec and you'll gain my support. QC gets the snow and they have the mountains and forests to keep the snow where they put it 80% is crown land, no landowner issues or road running, they have a network of groomers that are always out and running with backup groomers at every shop were nowhere near that level of quality or quantity to say ON pass prices = QC. 

 

I think if OFSC gets transparent and shows the Average Joe more than a "postcard" image that says 80% goes to new groomers 20% to the clubs for grooming you may gain a lot more support were not all 3rd graders here most of us are mature and can read a budget tabulation to see costs and expenses and reserves. Get Transparent show my the income vs expense publicly, hell front page of the damn website and i'll support whatever price it costs me to run that trail network. keep us in the dark and feed us crap and we will continue to act like mushrooms. 

 

Just my 2c.

Not to be argumentative, but do you review the balance sheets for the Federal, Provincial & Municipal Governments before paying your income and HST, your property taxes, or your insurance companies balance sheets or when you buy a case of beer or bottle of liquor.

 

We are talking $190 here per sled, not a major expenditure by anyone that can afford a snowmobile in the first place.

 

At the OFSC AGM they spent considerable time with an excellent presentation of revenues and expenditures, superbly done with graphs, pie charts and trends over past few years.  This info is available but generally shared with Club and District Executive but in printed form as well.  Every Club has 2 reps they can have attend the AGM.  The printed material is an inch thick and is sent out prior to the meeting.

 

Could it be shared on a wider basis, Yes.  

 

Would it do much good, probably No!

 

The Funding Formula is indeed Complex, not easily explained even to Club Presidents (I was one for 5 years) but the Info is there, there is no hidden Agenda by the OFSC.

 

I have been critical of the OFSC on several issues but I have never felt that info is being withheld.

 

The major expenditures are Insurance, Grooming, Trails, Administrative overhead along with Groomer Replacement.

 

Quebec gets special financial treatment from the Federal Government, quite unfair but a fact of life.  Their Provincial Government also provides greater financial assistance than does Ontario.

[BruteMan]

so to answer your first part yea i do spend a fair amount of time reviewing budgets and balance sheets I work as a Contracts Administrator in Civil Engineering so its kinda my thing i am probably rare indeed but i do keep up with local municipal and town meeting minutes and budgets as they directly impact me and my career for upcoming civil projects. I do realize im of a rare breed and alot do not.

 

And No I don't think something "shady" is going on and i'm sure OFSC is doing everything as best they think they can,  but for instance you have a club of 200 you send 2 people to sit in a presentation / workshop for 8+ hours then depend on those 2 who will inject their own impressions / interpurations to what they seen and heard to relay that information back to a club of 200 of which 50 make it to that debrief it becomes disseminated information like elephant telephone.

 

no it doesn't need to be a balance sheet for every roll of toilet paper spent on every outhouse but even some pretty basic statistics (total permits sold / total groomers purchased / total grooming funds spent / total reserves remaining for the past 5 years etc.) is more than they show right now to the average person's coming into the program pretty basic transparency that even the crappy ass wynne liberals can even show.

 

Tell me this graphic even comes close to real transparency to accurately inform the average rider and it explains why funds run out mid season on a year like this ones shaping up to be?

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

8 minutes ago, BruteMan said:

so to answer your first part yea i do spend a fair amount of time reviewing budgets and balance sheets I work as a Contracts Administrator in Civil Engineering so its kinda my thing i am probably rare indeed but i do keep up with local municipal and town meeting minutes and budgets as they directly impact me and my career for upcoming civil projects. I do realize im of a rare breed and alot do not.

 

And No I don't think something "shady" is going on and i'm sure OFSC is doing everything as best they think they can,  but for instance you have a club of 200 you send 2 people to sit in a presentation / workshop for 8+ hours then depend on those 2 who will inject their own impressions / interpurations to what they seen and heard to relay that information back to a club of 200 of which 50 make it to that debrief it becomes disseminated information like elephant telephone.

 

no it doesn't need to be a balance sheet for every roll of toilet paper spent on every outhouse but even some pretty basic statistics (total permits sold / total groomers purchased / total grooming funds spent / total reserves remaining for the past 5 years etc.) is more than they show right now to the average person's coming into the program pretty basic transparency that even the crappy ass wynne liberals can even show.

I believe90+% of "the average person's coming into the program" are not interested in the information you are looking for. It appears from Brian's comments above that the information is available to the 10% or less that may be by way of printed material made available to club AGM rep's. Shouldn't be hard to get from the 2 people in your club that did the voting at AGM if you are interested in doing so.

I don't get that type information when I purchase my vehicle license stickers yearly nor do I with my lock pass from Parks Canada. Not sure why OFSC should be any different.

[BruteMan]

True but taking a step back im looking at the topic of the thread as hey we're gonna have a great year but run out of funds so we should act now and raise next years permits $XX my simple question being new and interested in healthy discussion is if you don't raise a permit every year in the bad years and you didn't spend the money on grooming where's the reserve? And if you did spend it where did it go?

 

If you go ahead and crank that fee up $50 bucks next year and i think your gonna get alot of everyones attention asking the same questions were all debating here. so does that mean the organization is transparent enough or not enough is what we're talking about. do you have enough information available to justify to the average rider why their permit after Dec 1 went from $225+/- to 275+/-

 

Christ look at the backlash right now over a 3.99 app thats dead and a website /map that keeps crashing every few days....

 

Just saying yes im sure if i wanted to dig that much and i was that concerned about the permit fee i could deep dive the friger but thats alot of work on my part to go get that information from the club the members etc. why should I have to do that. goto any city / town website you will find their 2018 budget there for all to see and the minutes of every meeting they hold. your saying that's too much work of OFSC to do ? i mean do they not keep minutes at all? or formulate a annual budget?

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

20 minutes ago, BruteMan said:

True but taking a step back im looking at the topic of the thread as hey we're gonna have a great year but run out of funds so we should act now and raise next years permits $XX my simple question being new and interested in healthy discussion is if you don't raise a permit every year in the bad years and you didn't spend the money on grooming where's the reserve? And if you did spend it where did it go?

 

If you go ahead and crank that fee up $50 bucks next year and i think your gonna get alot of everyones attention asking the same questions were all debating here. so does that mean the organization is transparent enough or not enough is what we're talking about. do you have enough information available to justify to the average rider why their permit after Dec 1 went from $225+/- to 275+/-

 

Christ look at the backlash right now over a 3.99 app thats dead and a website /map that keeps crashing every few days....

 

Just saying yes im sure if i wanted to dig that much and i was that concerned about the permit fee i could deep dive the friger but thats alot of work on my part to go get that information from the club the members etc. why should I have to do that. goto any city / town website you will find their 2018 budget there for all to see and the minutes of every meeting they hold. your saying that's too much work of OFSC to do ? i mean do they not keep minutes at all? or formulate a annual budget?

Actually the thread was started with one person's opinion of what he thought was going to happen this year. Only his opinion. 

Anyway I don't want the OFSC spending resources on duplicating information that already exists and I fully support raising the permit fee by a minimum of $25.00 as soon as possible.

Have a safe and Happy New Year!