I have a vision for downtown Winsted

From: Winsted Mayor, Steve Stotko
Imagine what Winsted would feel like if the downtown embodied the collective vision of the community’s citizens. Can we picture a downtown that is built around the shared economic, social, cultural, and environmental vision of the community? Is it reasonable to expect our downtown to once again be a focal point for community? To be a place we want to live, work and play? To be a place of pride?
These questions form the basis of the work of the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force. But before we can answer those questions, we need to know where we want to go. We need a vision of what we want from our downtown.
Vision is the important first step on the way to reaching our goals. A vision is a dream with a plan. It is the ability to look into the future, to envision the possibilities, but also to understand the challenges and responsibilities along the way. A vision allows us to maintain a common focus as we work together to make the dream reality.
What is the ultimate goal? What do residents expect from their downtown? What will be required to get us from here to there? What actions do we need to take? What role does each of us need to play? What resources will be required?
It is important to acknowledge the magnitude of the work that will be involved. What is required is a long-term, community-wide commitment to creating the vision, doing the hard work that will be required to make it a reality, and sufficiently resourcing the initiatives with clear lines of communication and accountability. Patience and perseverance will be required, and expectations will need to be managed.
Coordinated, consistent political and administrative will is required to put a strategy in place, to resource it, and to follow through with its implementation over the long term. In order to do so, the process must have a leadership model that is a political, cross-sectoral, and accountable. City hall can provide formal leadership in guiding the process. But a task such as this one will require leadership and involvement from all parts of the community, from senior levels of government, and from a host of individuals, organizations, and businesses. Resources needed to achieve goals must be identified, secured, and allocated appropriately.
Most importantly, the community must believe in the achievability of the vision, and easily understand and see the way forward. The community must take ownership of the vision and contribute to its implementation.
Together, we can do this. Together, we will do this. We are Winsted; that’s what we do.

It’s time to finish the job

From: Hutchinson Mayor, Steve Cook; Winsted Mayor, Steve Stotko; Silver Lake Mayor Bruce Bebo, and McLeod County Commissioner Bev Wangerin
As the next session of the State Legislature gets underway, the traditional even-year bonding bill will receive significant discussion as investments in statewide and regional projects are weighed and considered.  State owned parks and trail projects, including the Luce Line State Trail, will be a part of those discussions, and the possible use of Legacy funds as an alternative funding source will likely be discussed, as well.
However, it is important to remember that the constitutional amendment creating the Legacy program specifically included language that states that Legacy funds “must supplement traditional funding sources for these purposes and may not be used as a substitute.”
This language was included to help ensure that new and expanded improvements to water quality, the environment and natural resources, arts and culture, parks and trails, and outdoor heritage are provided for, rather than just replacing existing and traditional funding and thus simply maintaining the status quo.
Discussion and analysis has already taken place by legislative analysts on how to interpret the supplement/not substitute and traditional funding source language. Since “traditional funding sources” is not defined, it is assumed that all funding types consistently used in the past would be included, including bonding. Plus, it is clear that the language applies to legislative appropriations, which also include state bonding. In addition, the development of state parks and state trails has traditionally been funded with state bonds.
Taken together it is clear that trying to shift state parks and trails development to Legacy funds would be contrary to the constitutional language. This is recognized by the fact that state park and state trail projects, such as paving the Luce Line, are prohibited from applying for Legacy grants (a point that has been confirmed).
State parks and state trails are state assets, just like other state facilities. Besides providing valuable recreational and healthy lifestyle opportunities to residents and visitors, state parks and trails also provide significant economic benefits to nearby cities, the surrounding region, and the state. While Legacy funds can help, state bonding is the appropriate funding source for developing those types of projects, including paving the Luce Line State Trail.
As such, the Luce Line and other state trails deserve to be part of the bonding discussion and seriously considered during the upcoming legislative session. For the Luce Line from Winsted to Cedar Mills, after 34 years and all the prep work, it’s time to finish it so more people can enjoy the trail and its vision, and untapped potential can finally become a reality.

From: Aaron Kubasch
Winsted
Citizens of Westgate Drive, Westgate Terrace, and Westgate Circle should be aware that Tuesday, Feb. 21, the Winsted City Council could go ahead with a project that could raise your taxes over $4,900 for street improvements in our neighborhood. Please attend this meeting if you are in favor of this project or if you are opposed to this project. It is very important that you make your feelings known to the council. The meeting is Feb. 21 at 6 p.m. at the Winsted City Hall.

Appreciation noted for Montrose resident

From: Sheila Salonek
Montrose
In last week’s paper, the list of wages for Montrose city employees and city council members was published.
What wasn’t mentioned, was that council member Scott Czanstkowsi’s pay was donated back to different city committees and organizations.  Some went to the Montrose Days Royalty Committee, some towards the Montrose Days car show.  A portion also went to a fundraiser for a former Montrose fireman’s family.
It should also be noted that council member Czanstkowski was responsible for reducing the pay each council member (and mayor) receives per meeting.
I appreciate his generousity to the city of Montrose and its citizens.

Freedoms and rights should be maintained

From: John Norman
Buffalo
Are we getting mixed messages from the Minnesota Republican Party and their legislators? They have taken the high ground on family values and fiscal responsibility under false pretenses, and now appear to have abandoned them completely.
Recent events demonstrate their inability to manage their own party, let alone govern our state. They always claimed that government doesn’t work and now have proved it, after taking control of the legislature in 2010. Examples are the state shutdown and the two proposed constitutional amendments.
In order to bypass Governor Dayton’s potential veto, they proposed putting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the 2012 ballot. This amendment is in complete opposition to the concept of individual freedom of all citizens to marry the person they love.
Our constitution guarantees the right of every eligible citizen to vote. This right is threatened by the GOP’s proposed constitutional amendment to require a photo ID for all voters. The supporters of this amendment make the frivolous claim of voter fraud, but it is a blatant attempt to discourage the elderly, students, and lower-income citizens to exercise their right to vote.
To defeat these amendments, we Democrats have to make sure the voters hear the truth about what the Republicans are proposing to do to the gay community and our potential Democratic voters.

Did the voter process work?

From: Harlan Wegschied
Winsted
I noticed a small item in the Jan. 2 edition of the Herald Journal mentioning that the local school superintendant commented on the bond referendum. Quote “the biggest factors were the total cost and the tax impact. He said the school board had received the same feedback.”
A group of us have been at every meeting of the board since the referendum failed and I guess I have not noticed any evidence that they got the message. People keep asking me what was the point of having a referendum in the first place, since the board seems to be hell-bent on spending every last dollar they can get away with.
I went back to the comments made on your blog site right after the vote; it makes for interesting reading. Chairman Bob Carlson, “I now have to seriously consider changing my philosophy based on the decisions of the majority. There will be a lot of thought and review over the next few months.” Yeah, like about five seconds.
A week later, they had a plan to get around the expressed wishes of a large majority of the voters. Fred Blaser said, “It is your right to vote the way you want, it is your responsibility to vote informed.”
So, how many people knew, until it came out in the paper one week before the vote that there was really a $7.5 million  plan on the table? Who did such a good job of keeping the public informed?
Ann Meyer said, ”I’d like to see referendum opposers step up and help make a plan that they will support.” Point of fact, a group of us have been at every meeting since the vote, we’ve been on the phone with boiler companies, we’ve had reps from two of the largest come out and look at them, l’ve been on the phone with the Minnesota Dept of Education finance division, the ones who approve or disapprove the plan.
I’ve had some very interesting conversations. A citizen at the last meeting asked the board’s consultant, advisor, or whatever, what he was wearing that night, “How much do you get for this?” Answer: 18 1/2 percent. On the original plan for $7.5 million, he would have gotten $1.387 million. If he gets that percentage on whatever comes out eventually, do you think the board is getting unbiased advice? I don’t . . . .
Does anyone on the board, or the referendum supporters for that matter, read the local paper? How about the statement by the county auditor-treasurer, Cindy Schultz, at a meeting in Winsted, “I feel for the main street commercial property in McLeod County. I don’t see much future if it keeps going the way it is.” Have any of you “yes” supporters taken the time to ask them how bad they are getting hit this next year, not to mention what will happen after next year, when the taxes for this project come online?
Somehow, the supporters argued that this $7.5 million was going to grow the town. Go figure I’ve held up on this letter one full day while Gene Feltman tried to get the reps from these two boiler companies on the agenda of the next board meeting, but nobody wants to talk to us and they sure don’t want anyone who knows what they are talking about to tell them why the biggest mistake they can make is throw out two Kewaunee boilers that were built to be repaired, and incidently, are built for both steam and hot water, and replace them with modern day throwaways.
We could just have them show up and take advantage of the three minutes allowed anyone there for comment period, subject to a total of five person, 15 minute limit, but, the hell with that. Ah, democracy in action.
I’ve been a member of this district for 51 years, paid my taxes like a good little boy, used the school two years when my sons went to kindergarten, and, like a lot of other people, stayed out of school politics.
That was a big mistake. We end up with a board of spend-thrifts. We get no vote on any of this foolishness, but there will be votes in the future, called school board elections.
I still think people will look back in the not-too-distant future and wish they had never opened this Pandora’s box of troubles. I even tried to get a community meeting with pro-voters to see if we could reach some kind of agreement on a program we could all agree on, but that fell flat on its face
Suddenly, people who signed their names to letters to the editor in support don’t want to be connected in any way. So, it’s back to retirement in my private stockade. This time, I will abide by the oath I took 23 years ago, to never, ever, ever again get involved in anything other than an individual’s issues. Bon-jour. Honk as you go by.

Next Page »