FFC funding model

[Wildbill]

All the money for grooming hours goes to the district and every district has their way to hive it back to the clubs. The district grooming hours are the district average grooming hours. If there is money left in July, it will be paid out. Most lukly you will never get the 400 grooming hours paid. I think, if you get paid 100 hours, be happy.

 That is not a pretty picture and it would make for a lively AGM.

[volunteer2]

 

I am going to contact my district ops director about all this today, and I encourage the rest of you to do so too. I am a groomer coordinator for 1 of my clubs groomers, and I have had heated debates with some directors about not grooming some trails when they want. I try and tell them we don't know exactly what we are getting for funding with this new system. They say we have the money, just groom. I say the money won't last forever if we don't get any back. We are closing in on 700hrs between both groomers, if this continues we will easily crowd 1k in hours. Something to think about.

 How are you making out with getting information. Any news?

[Wildman]

 

 How are you making out with getting information. Any news?

sorry, yes, be strategic with grooming, no more then is really needed, D5 is fast approaching the 4 year average. That was when the first set of groomer logs where submitted, right now is anyone's guess. We have received our second equalization payment as a district and the PSE. We will not know what we will get until the final payment which includes what they decide to give us for grooming activities, there is no set amount, just an up to $ and I didn't ask what that number was, I believe it was in the revised AGM FFC proposal. Time will tell and if the forecast is even close, the show will be over next week for us anyway, so the trails will be top notch for this weekend.  

[Bearcat_w]

In answer to everyone's question regarding payment for grooming hours over the clubs average, I asked Mike Clewer of the OFSC this question from the convention floor. We had concerns in D8, as two low snow years had pushed our 4 year average way down. I asked whether the $63+/- figure & average grooming hours were fixed amounts, or whether they would become variables if provincial permit sales fell short of budget, or if Districts groomed over their average hours. The answer was that the $63+/- figure could change to a lower amount if permit sales dropped or grooming hours rose. Thus, if we fall short of revenue, or the overall provincial grooming hours exceed budget, the allotment to the clubs could be lower than $63+/-. This would be applied province wide, so Districts that groom more than average would be paid for the extra hours, however it could effect the payments province wide to all Districts if the money in "the pot" is not enough to fund fully.

We will not have any idea whether we will see full funding at $63+/- until long after season's end when all permits are entered, and groomer log information compiled.

[Greggie]

That means if every district groom 25% more, you will get 25% less for a grooming hour. Said that, that means that you get nothing.

Thanks,

Greg

[Big Pete]

That means if every district groom 25% more, you will get 25% less for a grooming hour. Said that, that means that you get nothing.

Thanks,

Greg

 

Not necessarily true.

 

If the Equalization Fund is bigger than forecast due to increased permit sales, then there would be money in the fund to pay for the extra grooming hours. Based on what I have heard and read, permit sales will exceed the FFC forecast. By how much we dont know yet so its difficult to forcast the size of the Equalization Fund. If every PSE were to ensure that permit sales are up to date in the PTS system, I think the OFSC would be in a much better position to forecast Equalization payments.

[Wildbill]

Not necessarily true.

 

If the Equalization Fund is bigger than forecast due to increased permit sales, then there would be money in the fund to pay for the extra grooming hours. Based on what I have heard and read, permit sales will exceed the FFC forecast. By how much we dont know yet so its difficult to forcast the size of the Equalization Fund. If every PSE were to ensure that permit sales are up to date in the PTS system, I think the OFSC would be in a much better position to forecast Equalization payments.

This is right they need the information to work the numbers

[Wildman]

Is the pts fully functional now, can you actually access data and print off info?

[Wildbill]

Is the pts fully functional now, can you actually access data and print off info?

my understanding is not quite

[Greggie]

Is the pts fully functional now, can you actually access data and print off info?

No reporting, releasing permits, replacement permits. I heard that they are hoping to have reporting running in about 10 days v

Thanks

Greg

[volunteer2]

 

sorry, yes, be strategic with grooming, no more then is really needed, D5 is fast approaching the 4 year average. That was when the first set of groomer logs where submitted, right now is anyone's guess. We have received our second equalization payment as a district and the PSE. We will not know what we will get until the final payment which includes what they decide to give us for grooming activities, there is no set amount, just an up to $ and I didn't ask what that number was, I believe it was in the revised AGM FFC proposal. Time will tell and if the forecast is even close, the show will be over next week for us anyway, so the trails will be top notch for this weekend.

 The show will be over next week means what? I started this thread to get an idea of what the grooming situation is compared to the FFC budget numbers. It looks like the consensus is we are all going to go over and to keep grooming and then see how it works out. The trails are our product and the customers want them available.

[sledjunk]

Are any other clubs / districts facing permit shortages?

 

Our club was issued only about 75% of the number of permits that we sold last year and were told that we could not get more until they were all sold.  This, in turn, meant that we had to reduce the number of permits that we could distribute to our vendors.   As the season progressed, our permit coordinator had to visit the vendors more often just to try to move permits around to relieve shortages.

 

Now, we have sold all of our permits and we cannot get more.  This is a ridiculous situation and severely limiting our club revenue in a year with almost record snowfall and grooming hours.

[Wildbill]

No reporting, releasing permits, replacement permits. I heard that they are hoping to have reporting running in about 10 days v

Thanks

Greg

which ten days?

[Wildman]

The show will be over next week means what? I started this thread to get an idea of what the grooming situation is compared to the FFC budget numbers. It looks like the consensus is we are all going to go over and to keep grooming and then see how it works out. The trails are our product and the customers want them available.

The weather forcast, if it is 8*and rain, the show will be over for my club, done for the year. So we are running groomers and keeping the trails in the best shape we can for the weekend.

[volunteer2]

 

That is not a pretty picture and it would make for a lively AGM.

 Should be making for lively district meetings too!

[volunteer2]

 

The weather forcast, if it is 8*and rain, the show will be over for my club, done for the year. So we are running groomers and keeping the trails in the best shape we can for the weekend.

 May have a bit of a warm up later Feb according to Weather Network Lets not hope for 8*.

[Wildman]

I use accuweather

[volunteer2]

I use accuweather

Ouch    I see that   

[Panther340]

I saw a lot of interesting comments over at another Snowmachine site that apply here and many of those same folks are here at this site: (this also proves that I am not the only person on a sled that thinks it is wrong to ask others to pay for your sport, even some trail permit riders agree with me) here are some comments:

• Why ask non sledders to pay for our trails after sledders voted to give themselves a discount this year?
• You still have not addressed the difference between demanding a select group pay for you hobby as opposed to the general taxpayer? You can make no logical comparison to asking for funding from a select group to support your play relative to any broad tax based funding of other recreations, they are not the same and that is my point.
• But why should others less fortunate be asked to pay more taxes for you and your rich friends to ride groomed snowmobile trails? Let the people who wish to ride groomed trails pay to ride them. The entire "freeloader" thing is nothing but a guess. Is the 150,000 registered sled verified with the MTO as "current" this year? How does the bottom line look for a sled owner that didn't buy a permit? That's right they just had $20 taken out of their pocket to support our sport. That doesn't make sense.
• I have seen nothing from the "Valtag" camp that makes me buy into their plan. Nothing at all. Just BS numbers which are made up to fit a narrative (just like the Classic permit debacle).
• We have been a proud "User Pay" system since the inception of snowmobiling in this Province. But now because our sport is shrinking the story is OTHER PEOPLE should pay to support our sport. Sorry but I don't buy it.
• If the non-compliance was that bad there would be some data on it somewhere. At least some trailside stops would have massive #s of sleds without permits. Where is that data?
• The Valtag won't promote trail riding, or build on it. Because it isn't a trail pass. Those non permitted sleds will still be non-permitted.
• Their cost this year to be permitted will be lower than it would be after a valtag increase. You have to be nuts to think that will bring unpermitted sleds onto the trails. All it will do is take their money to support something they don't use.
• I understand the position of "stable funding" from the valtag. But it is not one I agree with. It is wrong to ask almost 50% of the registered sled in the Province to support our hobbies because we don't want to pay for it ourselves. It is self serving.
• I support the government flowing revenue from our sport, back to our sport. Not taking $$ from those who do not participate to fund my day on the trails.
• It makes WAY more sense to kill the free weekend than to ask others to pay for it. Or charge $20 for the "Try our Trails" weekend. That is ALL better than asking 70,000 sleds to pay for our hobby.
• Pay for your own trails. If need be groom less. Biggest issue the OFSC has are the whiny cry baby consumers they cater too. They buy $12,000 sleds with suspensions capable of handling huge bumps and jumps and then cry when the trails are even remotely rough. Suck it up. Groom less, groom fewer km's or whatever it takes but Pay for your own trails. Why not fund the trails with more radar on railbeds and such? Increase speed fines by $100 or $200. Nail the speeders and take the revenues. That way the guys riding the trails and doing most damage with excessive speed and driving habits and causing the ruts and bumps actually pay for it.
• There has been multiple requests over the last 6 pages of this thread for hard proof of the number of cheaters. Trailside checks show 2% or thereabouts. Max.
• Maybe the val tag idea supporters should camp out and count the sleds to support their theory because the accurate counts from spot checks don't support it.
• The val tage fee will not solve trespassing and may even make it worse. Giving those that do not buy a pass a rationalization to ride trails(they will see it as they have paid in). We simply need to charge what it costs, or cut back on programs first, grooming second and trails third. District 17 needs to go.
• Quebec has a $92 annual valtag registration fee, which has increased with inflation over the years (was $70 in 2007), ours has never adjusted in recent history... $40 of the QC registration goes directly to the quebec association. Their trail permit is $300 early bird.

So 70,000 permits @ $300 would generate 50% more revenue then the current permits. That would cover all expenses so there is your easy answer. $300 permits and users pay.

• most that do not ride trails still need to register the sled unless they ride on their own property or a native reserve. what would make you think that the majority of non trail riders ride only on their own property. Like SKS says, go out on Nipising, you will be in the area next week and take a look a thousands of sleds out ther fishing, these guys do not ride trails, do not want to ride trails and do not trespass on trails.

 

 

My comment to all the above posts and the four or five permit riders that had some commen sense there, is thanks for the common sense.  But further if there is 150,000 sleds registered with MTO a huge increase of $49 would only yield $7, 350,000, except that would need be carried over two years because valtags last two years and no way the Gov is going to attempt a 200% increase so it would be left as two year valtag………so actually only 3.6 million per year would be gained by valtags and OFSC. Except now subtract from that number all the rural old machine owners eg in North that will either no longer pay for valtags because $50-75 a pop to use their machine a few times a year is not just not worth it to them, or the others that will not pay for valtags and risk it now.  Now also subtract all the exceptions that Government will have to make for Natives and Trappers etc, add all those up and you probably have less than 3 million dollars, maybe even two million.  (and this assumes the Gov would go with $49 and not maybe $20) Now consider that Government will then be able to state that other funding can be removed because you digressed from a user pay system and it probably ends up a wash on whether you even gained anything. Meanwhile a province like Quebec that has a system like this still has to charge a $300 trailpermit fee over and above the $92 val tag and you see that you got no where and you lost control over your trails and handed them to Government even more. Let alone the fact that you would of alienated all sorts of rural and northern riders who did not use your trails and would be pizzed off.         

 

Just food for thought as you have your best snow year in a decade and you have all sorts of trail permits sold , hand out free weekends…………and still end up running short of funds and OFSC goes running to Gov to get valtag money……. Here is a suggestion I and others made before ……go for a piece of the gas tax, it makes the OFSC look fair and makes Government look good. Win win….and keeps your trails user pay and under your control.

[Blake G]

Panther340 I see some logical statements in your post.

[sledjunk]

I saw a lot of interesting comments over at another Snowmachine site that apply here and many of those same folks are here at this site: (this also proves that I am not the only person on a sled that thinks it is wrong to ask others to pay for your sport, even some trail permit riders agree with me) here are some comments:

• Why ask non sledders to pay for our trails after sledders voted to give themselves a discount this year?
• You still have not addressed the difference between demanding a select group pay for you hobby as opposed to the general taxpayer? You can make no logical comparison to asking for funding from a select group to support your play relative to any broad tax based funding of other recreations, they are not the same and that is my point.
• But why should others less fortunate be asked to pay more taxes for you and your rich friends to ride groomed snowmobile trails? Let the people who wish to ride groomed trails pay to ride them. The entire "freeloader" thing is nothing but a guess. Is the 150,000 registered sled verified with the MTO as "current" this year? How does the bottom line look for a sled owner that didn't buy a permit? That's right they just had $20 taken out of their pocket to support our sport. That doesn't make sense.
• I have seen nothing from the "Valtag" camp that makes me buy into their plan. Nothing at all. Just BS numbers which are made up to fit a narrative (just like the Classic permit debacle).
• We have been a proud "User Pay" system since the inception of snowmobiling in this Province. But now because our sport is shrinking the story is OTHER PEOPLE should pay to support our sport. Sorry but I don't buy it.
• If the non-compliance was that bad there would be some data on it somewhere. At least some trailside stops would have massive #s of sleds without permits. Where is that data?
• The Valtag won't promote trail riding, or build on it. Because it isn't a trail pass. Those non permitted sleds will still be non-permitted.
• Their cost this year to be permitted will be lower than it would be after a valtag increase. You have to be nuts to think that will bring unpermitted sleds onto the trails. All it will do is take their money to support something they don't use.
• I understand the position of "stable funding" from the valtag. But it is not one I agree with. It is wrong to ask almost 50% of the registered sled in the Province to support our hobbies because we don't want to pay for it ourselves. It is self serving.
• I support the government flowing revenue from our sport, back to our sport. Not taking $$ from those who do not participate to fund my day on the trails.
• It makes WAY more sense to kill the free weekend than to ask others to pay for it. Or charge $20 for the "Try our Trails" weekend. That is ALL better than asking 70,000 sleds to pay for our hobby.
• Pay for your own trails. If need be groom less. Biggest issue the OFSC has are the whiny cry baby consumers they cater too. They buy $12,000 sleds with suspensions capable of handling huge bumps and jumps and then cry when the trails are even remotely rough. Suck it up. Groom less, groom fewer km's or whatever it takes but Pay for your own trails. Why not fund the trails with more radar on railbeds and such? Increase speed fines by $100 or $200. Nail the speeders and take the revenues. That way the guys riding the trails and doing most damage with excessive speed and driving habits and causing the ruts and bumps actually pay for it.
• There has been multiple requests over the last 6 pages of this thread for hard proof of the number of cheaters. Trailside checks show 2% or thereabouts. Max.
• Maybe the val tag idea supporters should camp out and count the sleds to support their theory because the accurate counts from spot checks don't support it.
• The val tage fee will not solve trespassing and may even make it worse. Giving those that do not buy a pass a rationalization to ride trails(they will see it as they have paid in). We simply need to charge what it costs, or cut back on programs first, grooming second and trails third. District 17 needs to go.
• Quebec has a $92 annual valtag registration fee, which has increased with inflation over the years (was $70 in 2007), ours has never adjusted in recent history... $40 of the QC registration goes directly to the quebec association. Their trail permit is $300 early bird.

So 70,000 permits @ $300 would generate 50% more revenue then the current permits. That would cover all expenses so there is your easy answer. $300 permits and users pay.

• most that do not ride trails still need to register the sled unless they ride on their own property or a native reserve. what would make you think that the majority of non trail riders ride only on their own property. Like SKS says, go out on Nipising, you will be in the area next week and take a look a thousands of sleds out ther fishing, these guys do not ride trails, do not want to ride trails and do not trespass on trails.

 

 

My comment to all the above posts and the four or five permit riders that had some commen sense there, is thanks for the common sense.  But further if there is 150,000 sleds registered with MTO a huge increase of $49 would only yield $7, 350,000, except that would need be carried over two years because valtags last two years and no way the Gov is going to attempt a 200% increase so it would be left as two year valtag………so actually only 3.6 million per year would be gained by valtags and OFSC. Except now subtract from that number all the rural old machine owners eg in North that will either no longer pay for valtags because $50-75 a pop to use their machine a few times a year is not just not worth it to them, or the others that will not pay for valtags and risk it now.  Now also subtract all the exceptions that Government will have to make for Natives and Trappers etc, add all those up and you probably have less than 3 million dollars, maybe even two million.  (and this assumes the Gov would go with $49 and not maybe $20) Now consider that Government will then be able to state that other funding can be removed because you digressed from a user pay system and it probably ends up a wash on whether you even gained anything. Meanwhile a province like Quebec that has a system like this still has to charge a $300 trailpermit fee over and above the $92 val tag and you see that you got no where and you lost control over your trails and handed them to Government even more. Let alone the fact that you would of alienated all sorts of rural and northern riders who did not use your trails and would be pizzed off.         

 

Just food for thought as you have your best snow year in a decade and you have all sorts of trail permits sold , hand out free weekends…………and still end up running short of funds and OFSC goes running to Gov to get valtag money……. Here is a suggestion I and others made before ……go for a piece of the gas tax, it makes the OFSC look fair and makes Government look good. Win win….and keeps your trails user pay and under your control.

 

I don't disagree with some of your points, but the math doesn't work and your statistics of compliance are unsubstantiated.

 

Their cost this year to be permitted will be lower than it would be after a valtag increase.

 

Where does this come from?

 

• Quebec has a $92 annual valtag registration fee, which has increased with inflation over the years (was $70 in 2007), ours has never adjusted in recent history... $40 of the QC registration goes directly to the quebec association. Their trail permit is $300 early bird.

So 70,000 permits @ $300 would generate 50% more revenue then the current permits. That would cover all expenses so there is your easy answer. $300 permits and users pay.

 

 

Where do these numbers come from?  70,000?  $300 = 50% increase?

 

And you obviously see that Quebec had a precedent of distributing a portion of Val Tag Revenue to the FMCQ.  Are there not fisherman and trappers in Quebec?

 

But further if there is 150,000 sleds registered with MTO a huge increase of $49 would only yield $7, 350,000, except that would need be carried over two years because valtags last two years and no way the Gov is going to attempt a 200% increase so it would be left as two year valtag………so actually only 3.6 million per year would be gained by valtags and OFSC. Except now subtract from that number all the rural old machine owners eg in North that will either no longer pay for valtags because $50-75 a pop to use their machine a few times a year is not just not worth it to them, or the others that will not pay for valtags and risk it now.  Now also subtract all the exceptions that Government will have to make for Natives and Trappers etc, add all those up and you probably have less than 3 million dollars, maybe even two million.  (and this assumes the Gov would go with $49 and not maybe $20) Now consider that Government will then be able to state that other funding can be removed because you digressed from a user pay system and it probably ends up a wash on whether you even gained anything.

 

 

How did $15 (the proposed OFSC Val Tag revenue) get to be $50 - $75? (or $49)?  You numbers are all over the map?  Why would natives and trappers be exempt from Val Tags?

 

Two year Val Tags price = 2 x One Year Val Tag Price, so why are you making two year price as standard?  Maybe because where you live 2 x $0 is still $0?

 

As I said, I do not necessarily disagree with some of your points, but the whole post loses credibility with nonsensical statistics and prices.

 

Also, all monies from Provincial Offence Notices (tickets for speeding, no permit, no val tag, etc) go directly into the provincial coffers with no possibility of being redistributed to an NGO.

[Greggie]

Hi,

Who of you received updated the ffc equalization budget? All the clubs have received the AGM one, but it seems that there was an updated December 15 one with less money for each district and a January 15 one with again less money for the districts. We were calculating on the AGM one but we received less money. I am not happy, we will have more then 50% grooming hours and most likely less money. OFSC us telling everyone that they are on budget but it seems not.

Thanks,

Greg