Grooming Program Managment Study.

[Turbo Doo]

Sure!  There is always Quebec

Bonjour!...

[Wildman]

Hey Buddy   Sorry I didn't catch up with you at the D5 meeting, our bus and driver were on a schedule, no time to visit. You pretty much nailed it right in your post. The money was there before FFC and it was to get it onto the snow and since it didn't we have this.  The OFSC wants all the Districts to run like 5 and or 9 or a combination of them. Those are the two District that I am most familiar with but would like to know a bit more of other Districts. Also, the permit price is too low and it should be increased.

hey Nick, we where out of there right away, if I drove we wouldn't have made it half way through the meeting, l was pleaing with Huey to leave......he said it wouldn't look good, l really didn't care. In my opinion it is flat wrong to have a bean counter present this propsal. If he had a set of gold diggers in his sandles he would have gone right through the cement with the circles he was talkin in. I could of been makin money instead of wasting time there. It is not to often that I don't try to find the good in what excom and bog put together......but this crap show is ridiculous, they are grasping at straws to find a solution that is not there, we would be further ahead to ride the ship to the bottom and accept that the majority of snowmobilers are cheap pricks that don't want to pay the nesasery dollars to maintain a system to ride, then we are to self distruct within.

I missed hangin around and seein everyone too, hopefully there is a better tone at our first gm and we can all visit. Have fun at agm and don't vote for nothin stupid. I'll be racin and hopefully turnin on lots of win lamps! If not, I'll b poundin back the 40 crick!

[2bsledding]

Too much info, too little time to absorb and digest.

 

My understanding from the District 11 presentation was that all club funds would be turned over to the District unless the club chose to remain incorporated NFP.  In that case, all permit derived funds would still be turned over, but the club could choose to retain their fund raised funds, presumably for trail related local projects.  Or. the club could give up their charter and have a 'Special Club Designated Bank Account' set up at the District Office to hold their fund raised funds in trust to be released back to that local club only.

 

Clear as mud.

 

And yes, Brian, it was presented  (as usual) as an 'All or Nothing' vote at AGM.

 

And they wonder why there is a perceived lack of trust!

 

Here's an idea:  Have Barrie Office provide a listing of the wage grids for all Barrie Office personnel.  Not specific wages, that is protected info.  But the wage grids should be public info.

From what we were, told, if you decide to go away from being a nfp club, all funds will go to the Doistrict bank account. We were told no to "Special Club Designated Bank Account" as there was no need to have extra bank charges.   

[2bsledding]

With regards to "More on the Snow" I understood from our presentation to District 11 Clubs that the Chapter concept was completely voluntary and if a Club chose that route then a separate account would be set up at District so that that Club's bills could be paid by the District Manager at the Club's direction and authorization.

Clubs that wish to keep NFP Incorporated could continue to do so if they choose.

The $10,000,000 'locked away' in Club, District/Association bank accounts was certainly mentioned but there was no indication that all funds held by Clubs had to be turned over to District.

When we bought a 2004 BR last year our Club had to put in a good portion to secure the Groomer Fund $$ and we had to provide a financial statement which is entirely fair in my opinion.

I presume that this process will continue.

This matter of Clubs being required to send all of their Trail a Permit Revenues to the District needs to be clarified NOW, not at the AGM where we don't have very much time to discuss these big issues properly.

We were told the Recommendation was a package deal, either For or Against.

Hopefully someone who hasn't yet been to their District/OFSC presentation can get this clarified and post here.

I do agree that Groomers are our number one priority and some changes are certainly needed but not at the expense of a de nutting of all the Clubs.

Many Districts do not have the staffing to make these changes work right awY, maybe in 3-5 years as we transition but our District isn't ready IMHO.

Regarding your first paragraph:

"if a Club chose that route then a separate account would be set up at District so that that Club's bills could be paid by the District Manager at the Club's direction and authorization." Definately not the way it stands. There would be no separate account with extra bank charges. As far as "at the Club's Direction and Authorization", that would be up to the DISTRICT Board to decide and not the Club. Unless, the Club had some kind of signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the District, it will be the Districts direction and authorization.

 

[bbakernbay]

In my mind this forces the Clubs to give up the 'ownership and maintenance' of their Groomers/Drags to the District Committee.

This is not the way it should be done, don't push responsibility upwards in an organization, especially when it will all be Committee decisions made once per month, if you are lucky.

Responsibility should belong to the Club for maintaining the Groomers unless the District wants to hire a couple of Mechanics to look after 20+ Groomers.

This proposal is too radical at this time. Many long time guys looking after 'their' groomer is not necessarily a bad thing.

I can agree that the Fleet of groomers in a District should be managed by the District when it comes time to prioritize replacements and move groomers around to better suit the circumstances of where they are being used.

This doesn't need a radical change such as apparently being proposed.

I do agree Groomer Replacement is our collective number one priority and It certainly seems that we may have too many total groomers, for various reasons, mostly due to age of the fleet and Clubs needing a backup in case of breakdown. This probably could be better managed by having a District backup groomer or two.

[volunteer2]

I have a couple questions and I think the threads have touched on them. If MOS passes and the club stays a NFP does the existing permit account money  get transferred to the District?  Basically the money that has been "saved" up from the past. Also, we are voting on the permit pricing recommendation and the equalization payment recommendation. Are they part of the MOS vote?  So I am asking, if the MOS is turned down do the 2 others get turned down automatically? At our District presentation we did not discuss these 2 recommendations.

[Greggie]

I have a couple questions and I think the threads have touched on them. If MOS passes and the club stays a NFP does the existing permit account money  get transferred to the District?  Basically the money that has been "saved" up from the past. Also, we are voting on the permit pricing recommendation and the equalization payment recommendation. Are they part of the MOS vote?  So I am asking, if the MOS is turned down do the 2 others get turned down automatically? At our District presentation we did not discuss these 2 recommendations.

It's easy, everything bought from Permit money and savings belongs to the OFSC. Everything bought from Fundraising money and savings belongs to the club.

 

Most likely the MOTS will pass with 60-65%. For all grooming associations, District 5, District 9 is this not a big change. There are also lots of clubs with low volunteers, for them is this the solution.

 

The MOTS will improve grooming and the trails will be in better shape in most areas. For the average snowmobiler a good change.

[bbakernbay]

Greggie

 

In those 2 Districts who maintains the Groomer, the Clubs or District paid Mechanics?

[volunteer2]

Greggie

 

In those 2 Districts who maintains the Groomer, the Clubs or District paid Mechanics?

Brian  I am from D5 and we do the following. The District pays for grooming. If a club has operators that volunteer the value of their "wage" gets transferred to the club. This would be their contribution back to their club. Each club is responsible for their own groomer maintenance and repair and scheduling. Saying that if they want to volunteer I am not sure if there is any reimbursement. Last year our model paid for repairs when they were approved by the trails committee. I am not on the trails committee so if there is more accurate info, again please correct me. With respect to D9 Faceman prob is the best info source but from what I know the District pays the groomer operators. I understand there is no volunteering. The maintenance again is a club responsibility and they are allotted a certain dollar value amount for maintenance per hour groomed. Here the volunteers can make the repairs as volunteers and that would be their contribution. Both models have pros and cons and are quite new so there is a lot still to work out. Obviously with MOS these models may have to be changed up again. I am curios about who on the forum belongs to a  club or association that is a PSE?

[volunteer2]

It's easy, everything bought from Permit money and savings belongs to the OFSC. Everything bought from Fundraising money and savings belongs to the club.

 

Most likely the MOTS will pass with 60-65%. For all grooming associations, District 5, District 9 is this not a big change. There are also lots of clubs with low volunteers, for them is this the solution.

 

The MOTS will improve grooming and the trails will be in better shape in most areas. For the average snowmobiler a good change.

Yes I think that the "ownership" of assets has been pretty much agreed on that it belongs to the OFSC. My point is will the permit accounts and money in them  be taken from NFP clubs (they do not switch to chapters) and put into the District account?

[Greggie]

Yes I think that the "ownership" of assets has been pretty much agreed on that it belongs to the OFSC. My point is will the permit accounts and money in them  be taken from NFP clubs (they do not switch to chapters) and put into the District account?

In both cases it will be taken early or later. In the OFSC mind, it belongs to the OFSC.

[volunteer2]

hey Nick, we where out of there right away, if I drove we wouldn't have made it half way through the meeting, l was pleaing with Huey to leave......he said it wouldn't look good, l really didn't care. In my opinion it is flat wrong to have a bean counter present this propsal. If he had a set of gold diggers in his sandles he would have gone right through the cement with the circles he was talkin in. I could of been makin money instead of wasting time there. It is not to often that I don't try to find the good in what excom and bog put together......but this crap show is ridiculous, they are grasping at straws to find a solution that is not there, we would be further ahead to ride the ship to the bottom and accept that the majority of snowmobilers are cheap pricks that don't want to pay the nesasery dollars to maintain a system to ride, then we are to self distruct within.

I missed hangin around and seein everyone too, hopefully there is a better tone at our first gm and we can all visit. Have fun at agm and don't vote for nothin stupid. I'll be racin and hopefully turnin on lots of win lamps! If not, I'll b poundin back the 40 crick!

Hey Ted  There may be some adjustments up to the vote. We will have to wait and see but there seem to be more questions than answers and different answers too. I am gonna keep asking. There is always good info here so everyone keep it up.  Good luck at the track and remember   Safety first.

[sledjunk]

 Obviously with MOS these models may have to be changed up again. I am curios about who on the forum belongs to a  club or association that is a PSE?

Our club is a PSE and a standalone grooming entity.

 

We have some reserves to cover things like our Groomer Storage rental (due Nov 1, before any revenue for this year), seasonal startup expenses, and groomer refurbishment and repair.  So far this year, we have spent upwards of 5 figures in equipment repairs.  This has been primarily parts and some sub contract work.  I am sure you have seen our progress in other threads.

 

As I understand it, our club would likely remain a NFP as I cannot see any volunteer taking on the responsibility of a director's role in an unincorporated club.  If this passes, all of our prudent fiscal management over the years would have been for naught as out bank accounts would be drained and we will have to go, hat in hand, for every nickle we need to spend.  I expect this will lead to massive losses of volunteers as people like to have some responsibility and pride in helping the club succeed.  In this proposal, there is nothing to be proud of.  What use is a treasurer without a bank account.  For that matter, what is a director without any say in the club's direction?  Basically, the clubs get the grunt work without any benefit or opportunity to shine.

 

As I understand how the current grooming associations work, funds and equipment are pooled and the PSE is the association.  The PSE gets the lion's share of the permit revenue, but the clubs also get some of it.  This allows the clubs to maintain their trails and trail building equipment, as well as fund any other incidental expenses to enhance the club atmosphere.  I am not sure that this will continue with this proposal.

 

This whole proposal reeks of, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  History has shown us how well that works. 

[Faceman]

That is not what has happened so far in D9 with FFC and don't see the new MOTS really negatively affecting us. The clubs /associations receive their 30% through a series of payments while the district funds fuel and operator wages. The district does not dictate how clubs spend the funds they receive. The operators are all employed by the district on the recommendation of the appropriate club or Association. The operators are then trained or updated on health and safety and SOP's by the district through the clubs. Not sure where the loss of control comes from. We have a district board with equal representation district wide. Normal meetings with the occasional conference call or email vote for emergent issues requiring a quick decision. A Trails Committee operates under the district board and reports to the board. The Trails Committee only makes recommendations. There hasn't been any loss of identity and can't see it happening. The only other thing we foresee happening is some boundary  changes for grooming purposes.

Clubs also continue to receive the final equalization payments as required.

[volunteer2]

SJ  We have had 2 funding models in D5 since FFC. The first model had given back to the clubs the 30% minus an agreed amount the District kept for programs they looked after. The District at that time paid for groomer wages and fuel. The clubs were still responsible for trail costs and groomer repair. That changed last year with the District keeping the permit money and gave back $15 per permit to the selling entity. The District now pays for ALL costs except landowner and volunteer recognition. Definitley a lot of changes in the last couple years since before we ran the same scenario as your club. My question still is: will the permit accounts get handed over to the District for NFP clubs and will the District be able to send new permit money down to the clubs through a form of "funding"???

[volunteer2]

Read the permit recommendation report and see that if the MTO allows up to and including a $30 val tag increase then the permit price will not be reduced.  That means a $30 increase in the cost of sledding from what I see.

[sledjunk]

That is not what has happened so far in D9 with FFC and don't see the new MOTS really negatively affecting us. The clubs /associations receive their 30% through a series of payments while the district funds fuel and operator wages. The district does not dictate how clubs spend the funds they receive. The operators are all employed by the district on the recommendation of the appropriate club or Association. The operators are then trained or updated on health and safety and SOP's by the district through the clubs. Not sure where the loss of control comes from. We have a district board with equal representation district wide. Normal meetings with the occasional conference call or email vote for emergent issues requiring a quick decision. A Trails Committee operates under the district board and reports to the board. The Trails Committee only makes recommendations. There hasn't been any loss of identity and can't see it happening. The only other thing we foresee happening is some boundary  changes for grooming purposes.

Clubs also continue to receive the final equalization payments as required.

 

SJ  We have had 2 funding models in D5 since FFC. The first model had given back to the clubs the 30% minus an agreed amount the District kept for programs they looked after. The District at that time paid for groomer wages and fuel. The clubs were still responsible for trail costs and groomer repair. That changed last year with the District keeping the permit money and gave back $15 per permit to the selling entity. The District now pays for ALL costs except landowner and volunteer recognition. Definitley a lot of changes in the last couple years since before we ran the same scenario as your club. My question still is: will the permit accounts get handed over to the District for NFP clubs and will the District be able to send new permit money down to the clubs through a form of "funding"???

We have not had our district meeting yet, but as I understood this proposal, all club permit money would go to the district and there would be NO further permit money going to the club in the future.  This would also change the status quo for D5 and D9.  If I am incorrect, maybe someone who has had a district meeting can correct me.

[volunteer2]

SJ   Yes that is exactly how I understand it too. I re read the MOS proposal last night. Page 8 number 2   Reducing the number of independent layers of accountability for permits revenues.  

[sledjunk]

Read the permit recommendation report and see that if the MTO allows up to and including a $30 val tag increase then the permit price will not be reduced.  That means a $30 increase in the cost of sledding from what I see.

 

I think you are correct, but, if the money goes into organized snowmobiling, I can live with it.  However, I know there will be a backlash from the sled owners who do not use the OFSC trails.  I can understand that, to a degree, but that is a different and unending discussion.

 

What I am uncomfortable with the permit pricing recommendation is that it is open ended.  The proposal sets prices but allows the BOG to modify the recommendation if they choose.  The proposal has set one scenario where the prices could be changed, but I suspect that this is a first step to the club's no longer being a participant in the setting of permit prices.

 

Also, the proposal says that if there is a val tag increase over $30, there would be permit price reduction, but does not quantify the reduction.

[volunteer2]

I had originally heard that the val tag increase would be offset so the net cost would be the same.  I just think it's funny that we can't increase the permit 10 bucks because people wont buy but this would increase the cost up to $30 bucks. I have two sleds so yes $60 bucks more but we all have said the sport needs more $. 

[02Sled]

I had originally heard that the val tag increase would be offset so the net cost would be the same.  I just think it's funny that we can't increase the permit 10 bucks because people wont buy but this would increase the cost up to $30 bucks. I have two sleds so yes $60 bucks more but we all have said the sport needs more $. 

 

The val tag permit increasing would be more palatable likely to most since it is the government doing that and it is the perception factor. We are becoming numb to government increases and just accept it. The threshold is still relatively low for the val tag and perceived value may be more palatable. Also the OPP are more concerned with the val tag and people therefore more likely concerned about being caught.

 

It never ceases to amaze me the things people will cheap out on. You see someone buy a $150,000.00 boat and then look for the cheapest possible polish/wax they can find to protect it.

[Claire Voyant]

The Groomer Management Study clearly identified some grooming inefficiencies by some clubs in some districts. I cannot speak for my district, but every club is required to report their grooming hours and submit their logs. I've seen Facebook posts from people (in other districts) claiming that they were never asked to submit groomer logs at the end of the season, so therefore they doubt the validity of the Groomer Management Study's data. Insanity.

The future of snowmobiling isn't about individual clubs....it's about marketing and tourism. If the OFSC is going to pursue (more)Government funding then they have to be able to present a consistent product. You cannot comprehend the "More on the Snow" proposal until you've read, and understood, the Groomer Management Study. You can't just dismiss the seven recommendations.

Val tag revenue will help: presently we in the north do not pay anything to register our sleds. But it's not the complete answer. When I put plates and a validation sticker on my family vehicle, the money doesn't go to my municipality, or a local auto club.

When I buy a Trail Permit, I'd expect to see the same quality of trails in every district. That's not happening.

Don't make the BOG out to be the bad guys. We all need to get our heads out of our...ah, clouds...and find something that works. We need to make some big changes and bitching about the BOG or the OFSC doesn't change that.

[sledjunk]

The Groomer Management Study clearly identified some grooming inefficiencies by some clubs in some districts. I cannot speak for my district, but every club is required to report their grooming hours and submit their logs. I've seen Facebook posts from people (in other districts) claiming that they were never asked to submit groomer logs at the end of the season, so therefore they doubt the validity of the Groomer Management Study's data. Insanity.

 

Not doubting that you have seen these posts but, Grooming logs have been mandatory for many years so I suspect anyone that posted that did not know what was really happenin

g and / or had no real knowledge of how the club operated.

The future of snowmobiling isn't about individual clubs....it's about marketing and tourism. If the OFSC is going to pursue (more)Government funding then they have to be able to present a consistent product. You cannot comprehend the "More on the Snow" proposal until you've read, and understood, the Groomer Management Study. You can't just dismiss the seven recommendations.

 

I have read the proposal and the consultant's report.  The report makes some valid points but some points are disputable IMO.  The MOTS proposal also has some good points, but is an incomplete recommendation with an over ambitious timeline.

Val tag revenue will help: presently we in the north do not pay anything to register our sleds. But it's not the complete answer. When I put plates and a validation sticker on my family vehicle, the money doesn't go to my municipality, or a local auto club.

 

And neither your local municipality or auto club finances the provincial network of highways, so that is not a valid comparison.

When I buy a Trail Permit, I'd expect to see the same quality of trails in every district. That's not happening.

 

Kind of an unrealistic expectation, when trails are not engineered roadways, usually on temporary surfaces e.g. farm fields, private property, road allowances (often unmaintained or unimproved) and reliant on weather patterns, volunteer availability, and limited financial support.

Don't make the BOG out to be the bad guys. We all need to get our heads out of our...ah, clouds...and find something that works. We need to make some big changes and bitching about the BOG or the OFSC doesn't change that.

 

I agree that we need to make changes.  However, over the last few years, the BOG and the OFSC HO have become increasingly exclusive and have pushed omnibus proposals with a take it or leave it attitude.  This is now culminated in a proposal where they, in the guise of relieving volunteer burden, are telling us that the clubs can do the grunt work but are not capable of making any real management decisions or handling the finances of our clubs.

 

No doubts that there are efficiencies that can be achieved to varying degrees across the province.  However, throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach that this proposes, without full details is a huge cause for concern.

[Wildman]

SJ  We have had 2 funding models in D5 since FFC. The first model had given back to the clubs the 30% minus an agreed amount the District kept for programs they looked after. The District at that time paid for groomer wages and fuel. The clubs were still responsible for trail costs and groomer repair. That changed last year with the District keeping the permit money and gave back $15 per permit to the selling entity. The District now pays for ALL costs except landowner and volunteer recognition. Definitley a lot of changes in the last couple years since before we ran the same scenario as your club. My question still is: will the permit accounts get handed over to the District for NFP clubs and will the District be able to send new permit money down to the clubs through a form of "funding"???

another thing to remember, d5 funding models are up for vote each year, as the provincial funding model is changing yearly. If this is passed, our model will have to change again with no permit money flowing to the clubs. I still don't think the district boards need this much control, way to big a step all at once, especially for districts that have had limited control. 4 or 5 weeks is not enough time to absorb changes like this, completely learn and understand the ramifications and vote on it. Jmo.

[Wildman]

I still don't like it, and we have to remember, district boards are volunteers too, it may become even tougher to fill the board and committee positions with more work load and traveling, something to really consider.