Comments:
From Tom Schmitz, Troop 51, New Ulm
I vote for a financial campaign to reduce the council debt, improve our existing cub scout camping facilities and also improve facilities at Camp Cuyuna. I would like us to do this without selling an acre of our camp properties.
From Robert Boomgarden, Pack 46, Windom
I believe it would be a mistake to sell any of Twin Valley Council's assets. These camps are a unique set of properties that, once sold, cannot be replaced adequately by use of other facilities.The memories that scouts,former scouts, carry with them all thier lives cannot be replaced by random use of parks etc.The same holds true for the parents/families of scouts in the use of the family camp facilities at cuyuna.The oppurtunity to involve families with their scouts is one of the basic necessities of continuing the scouting program.I believe that we should exhaust every option before considering sale of these properties.
From Dianne M. Bittenbinder, Troop 56, Fairmont
Scouting means camping and I can't understand why Twin Valley Council would even consider selling off prime camping areas. I have 2 boys who have both been involved in scouting since they were Tigers. The oldest is 21 and my 17 year old is in the process of earning his Eagle. They both have wonderful memories of summer camp at Cuyuna and many experiences (overnights and day camps) at Cedar Point. I have been a volunteer in the scouting program for 15 years. This action is inconceivable to me! Please reconsider. I think current and future scouts deserve to have these camp areas preserved for their use. I want them to have the camping experiences that both my boys had.
From Pastor Meg Sander, Troop 41, Wells
I've seen the benefits of the camp for our youth and their excitement in going to the camps. The fellowship with dads, troop leaders and other boys is very valuable.
From Don Browne, Troop 54, Eagle Lake
I believe the Council should sell the area in question to retire the debt, but then sell no more than that.
From Melinda Roberts, Troop 95 & Pack 91, Mankato
Cuyuna is our greatest asset--it is priceless. I find it incomprehensible to sell it or any of our camps for that matter. Camping is the vehicle in which we teach our boys the values of scouting, much like Lord Baden Powell did. Over and over again, we hear that boys join scouts so they can camp--why then would we want to get out of camping? It just doesn't make sense!
From Loran Kaardal, Pack 73, Redwood Falls
I prefer conservation easements with the DNR where we sell of the development rights on the "non-developed" areas, but retain ownership.
We receive compensation for the value that we have given up, but retain our ownership and use of the property.
I prefer that this also be done at Camp Norseland.
By completing the conservation easements at both camps, we extract the maximum amount of value now, and it protects the properties from being subject to sale by future council boards for development.
This option would meet both concerns of creating the cash to pay off the debt and retention of all three camps.
From Bill Shields, Troop 49, Blue Earth
I feel that we also need an active properties commitee to oversee our and utalize our current and feuture assets. Right now no one knows for sure what we own. Or how to best put our assets to work.
From Jenni Tennyson, Pack 55, Truman
I am just getting in to scouting, but I have three sons and I would like them to have the opportunity to go camping. Afterall, when you ask most of the boys why they joined scouts, their answer is usually "to go camping". I also beleive that every effort needs to be made to bring these camps up to National Standards. I've only been to Cedar Point, but if the other two camps are like Cedar Point, there is some major work to do!
From Frank Samlaska, Troop 24, Mankato
Doug DeMarce's idea of having Units pledge an annual amount over a 5yr. period is an excellent idea. Packs and Troops pledge what ever they can afford.Utilize the DNR essments on Pickerel which should bring in over a million which was indicated by the man from the DNR in Madelia dependent on the linear feet.Up-grade Cuyuna to a point.Keep it a wilderness and market/promote not just to our council but others/organizations.
I'm not in favor of getting out of long term camping. In fact just the opposite. Our Tigers love the fact that they may have the opportunity to camp. They look forward to joining Troop 24. We have a long history of camping. Feel free to share this with any Scouter you wish. I've also been the Cub recruiter for Pack 171 for 10yrs. I know what we're talking about. I've told Paul W. the same. We control our camping. I don't think the real issue is money. It's about Cub World and /or consolidation.We can have soft camping for Cub Scouts with Cedar Point and Norsland.
From Bill Swan, Troop 25, New Ulm
First-This is a terribly worded survey. I am in strongly in favor of selling the family camp area. We can not afford to have so much money tied up doing nothing for Scouts. Our council can not afford three camps. I would like to see more done at Norseland and Cedarpoint.
From Wendy Frarck, Troop 95, Mankato
I don't believe that any of the above answers are the correct solution. I think having 3 camps is not viable. However, I do not favor selling ALL of the camps. I think we should concentrate on one or MAYBE 2, but NOT all 3. Therefore, I think you should have an additional option on your survey. Thank you.
From Vince Bourgault, Pack 51, New Ulm
To put it plain and simple: Scouting = Camping. That's all it really comes down to. By no longer supporting long-term camping, you might as well close up shop and kiss scouting goodbye because Doing away with long-term camping will be the death knell for scouting.
From Mary A Roy, Troop 54, Eagle Lake
Greetings,
Twin Valley Council made a mistake by building a Boy Scout Office in Mankato that they cannot afford. I know that the Board that oversees the concerns for the council are under pressure to relieve the debt. Very tough choices must be made and they will be made based on priorities.
I understand that the Board whats to keep the building because so many contributors will not ever want to contribute to Boy Scouts again if we sell the building that they helped pay for. But are the contributors our priority? I don't think so.
The biggest priority is the programs for the boys. Boys join scouting because they get to go camping. To have quality camping experiences within a reasonable distance we need to keep our camps. THIS IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY AND WE CANNOT FORGET IT.
I understand that the camps need time, $ and effort to get them fixed up for the Cug Scouts. Camping is a priority and the money would be well spent on the camps.
I understand that it is alot of work to organize long term camping but camping IS a priority in Boy Scouts.
The camps are on beautiful land and if the land is sold it is gone forever. Land is important and is a treasure in an ever shrinking world. Land is a treasure and a priority. We must be good stewards of the land that we purchased by true visionaries for Boy Scouts in Twin Valley Council a half century ago.
But something must give. WE have made a huge mistake by building that Boy Scout Office in Mankato. WE have a huge debt. We cannot preserve the things that are important to us like the land and the camps without giving up something. I suggest that since we all agree that it was a mistake to build that building that we could not afford, the Board President admitted that it was a mistake at the meeting in Eagle Lake, then please sell the building. The building was a mistake hense we sell the building.
The priorities are the programs for the boys and therefore we need to keep the camps and the land.
Sincerely,
Mary A. Roy
From Tom Hallett, Asst. Scoutmaster, Troop 4, Mankato
FACILITIES NEED IMPROVEMENT AND OPENED UP TO OTHER GROUPS TO BRING IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
From Nick Baumgart, Troop 51, New Ulm
I do work at camp Cuyuna, and am part of the venturing crew...not sure what those numbers arem though.
From Dave Gehrke, Troop 25, New Ulm
I have had a chance to review the appraisal that was completed on Cuyuna. In my opinion I beleive it is GREATLY under valued. DO NOT sell the property at the appraised value. If you do, please sell it to me at that price!
I would suggest, (as I had before the "Palace" was built) Sell the new building, get what you can, reduce your debt, lease some office space and do not sell the camps. I would also suggest an independent realtor be hired inorder to avoid any conflict of interest.
From Steve Dumke, Troop 95, Mankato
To sell Cuyuna or Norseland to pay for a building that the scouts don't even use would be very unfair to the scouts of Twin Valley Council. If these camps are sold, I know one volunteer that would quit volunteering!
From Susan Uhde, Troop 75, Madelia
Camping and Boy Scouts go hand in hand. Two of my grandsons and I participated in a campout at Norseland last fall. The boys had a GREAT time and are looking forward to camping this spring. Camping experiences will become more and more important as families get busier, money gets tighter and more families are headed by single parents. The mentorship of Boy Scout leaders and the camping experiences are crucial to the positive development of our children.
From Lowell Johnson, Troop 29, Mankato
Troop 29 says to keep Camp Cuyuna and improve Norseland and Cedar Point.
From Dale Neele, Pack 73, Redwood Falls
I would like to thank paul & tom for taking the time to do the comunity meetings. For listing to the scout family and following up on some of that information. If we can learn from this I would hope we do better at comunicating with the board and continue to support our camps. We don't want to ever be pushed in a corrner like this agine. The scout family is very Ressorsful and has given the board good opption to look at. the time will come soon when we need to show our support for camping with money supplys & labor.
From Doug Lind, Troop 7, Albert Lea
What is Scouting if not sharing the camping experience with our boys. This council has in the past and seems to be currently putting their"Pretty Buliding" way far ahead of the needs of our scouts. THis is wrong. If we are that financially strapped, Dump the building not our camping facilities. Camps like Cuyuna could never be replaced. We obviously would not have the money to purchase another camp someplace else. I keep hearing the things the council is and isn't going to do. It all ends the same with them doing what they want. Sure they ask for our input and opinions but that has become for of a courtesy than anything else, we're not stupid. We are the people volunteering our time to give a good program to the boys, but it is getting increasingly difficult to maintain confidence in the boad of Twin Valley COuncil.
You want my opinion, once again I'll give it.
Where are we supposed to go when the Twin Valley Council folds after Pat Kunkel has worked so hard to build it up from the mess it was 2 years ago. Does our enrollment transfer to one of the other Councils?
From Bill VanderSluis, Mankato
While this form of survey does not enable me to express my exact opinion, I've provided the response which is closest to my opinion.
I believe the preservation of a long term camping program a Cuyuna is paramount. Selling a portion of Cuyuna, although underisable, would be acceptable to me in light of the financial dilema confronting the Twin Valley Council.
From Jeff Kunkel, Crew 999, Brassworks
Twin Valley Council's greatest assets are the three camps. Cuyuna is the "jewel in the crown" of this council, any one who has camped there knows this. Boys join scouting mostly to go camping, and it's the camping that keeps our adult leaders involved. There is most defiantly a debt problem that needs to be dealt with, but selling off Cuyuna is NOT the way to deal with it. I would like us to learn more about the possibility of selling portions of the camp to the DNR with lifetime easements that will allow us to continue using the camp as we have been using it for 37 some years. This should raise some funds which could lower the debt to a manageable level and provide the funding the Cub program needs. Those of you who have been given the responsibility to make these decisions need to realize that what you do today will affect this council for the rest of it's existence. Let us not be the remembered as the generation that lost Cuyuna.
From Barbara Turner, Troop 54, Eagle Lake
Of course long term camping should be encouraged and supported.
From Kaye Klinksiek, Troop 49, Blue Earth
I thought that was part of scouting--camping. What beneift was a million $ building to the scouts? They did not ask for it.
From Dick Dahlen, Troop 40, Albert Lea
Cedar Point can't be sold, due to the deed. It would go back to the owers and then to the country.
Selling land near family camp just sucks.The council worked for years getting the rights to close off the road to others, only to give it up!
On the other hand there could be an large complex being build on the other side on Apache camp site.
The wish list for camp improvements is to large. Nationals way of dealing with Cub is not reasonable ( swimming pools, cabins)
Twin Valley is one of the smallest councils in the Midwest and has the largest deat.Other areas just laught at us for the size of the council office. St Cloud & Rochester both have sold off their long term camps.
From Terry Zabel, Troop 109, Austin
The Leaders of Troop 109 in Austin are strongly in support of long term camping provided by Twin Valley Council and as part of the councils long range plan.
We are also for the improvement of all of our camp facitlities as to promote use of all of our camps and to encourage a fun camping experience for cub and boy scouts.
From Sandy Pierson, Pack 13, Winthrop
If you sell off all the land there will not be much of a future for scouting. For all these years it has been such a big part of scouting. It has been maintained and keep in the past, why can we no longer afford it? Maybe we need to cut back in other areas of scouting (new buildings administration etc...) but not take this land and experiences away from what the program is all about ------The Scouts!
From Sue Rath, Pack 31, Wells
Im not sure of your definition of long-term camping, but I think that providing camping opportunities to scouts is extremely important.
From Loren Tolzmann, Troop 41, Wells
I think we should up grade Norseland and Cuyuna because we own them. Cedar Point is nice but we can't invest in something we can't get our money back out of in some way. Once you sell the other two camps then they are gone forever. The camps have been neglected for years. Now you want to sell then to pay for someones act of mismanagement and over spending of the Councils funds.We didn't need that new Scout office that bad did we? It's hard decision to make after the damage is done. I just don't want the Scout's to loose again.
From Ann Bryson, Pack 11, Alden
I think it is important to get the boys out on camping opportunities. I would appreciate it if there were info on each camp for us to read over to find out more. (Maybe that is on the TVC website. I have had some problems with getting info from the site and should take some time at a location that has high speed internet to do some browsing. With our system at home it just takes more time than I have. Sorry, but that is the case) Some of the info I have received has mentioned these locations but I think they need far more PR from kids that have attended. I hope to send some boys to daycamp this summer but it gets to be a problem with so many working parents that can not take the time to get the kids there. It is easier for many to send their boys to daycare than daycamp. You may want to revisit the rules on how many parents need to attend. This seems to be our biggest obsticle. Parents just won't take the day to spend with their child. It is sad.
From Sheila Wurtzberger, Pack 100, Sleepy Eye
I am not totally opposed to selling part of Camp Cuyuna as long as it goes to some one that will keep it as is with maybe a provision that allows the Boy Scouts to keep using it such as the DNR
From Jacky Payne, Troop 219, Clarks Grove
One of the main purposes of Boy Scouts is to introduce boys to the outdoors. Without camping facilities, this cannot be accomplished. Many lasting, memories are made at such campouts. All of this would be lost without access to Twin Valley camping facilities. Current and future scouts should not suffer from the poor management and decisions of the previous administration. The sale of the financial problem (new council headquaters) is the true solution. A council the size of Twin Valley should never have incurred such expense. Council headquaters can be maintained in much less costly facilities and still remain effective. We, as leaders, must remember; scouting is for the boys not for the egos of the adults. KEEP the camping facilities at the curent level and SELL the flamboyant office building.
From Alan Schroeder, Troop 8, LeRoy
On your camp survey you give an all or none choice. Camping is important to the boy scouts and having a place where the council can have events and allow a tradition of camping to continue is important. I think the local camps are important and should be supported and money spent on them to allow weekend scout and cub camping.
Cayuna on the other hand is an expensive thing for a council such as ours to operate. It is wonderful to have, but it is to far away to be used as anything but a long term camp, and as a long term camp our council just does not have the money to support it and improve it in the way a long term camp should be. The camp is lacking many of the basics that a long term camp should have and I feel that we are cheating our boys of the experiences they can get from Napawan, Lewis and Clark or even Decorah , and these camps are all about the same distance or even closer than Cayuna.
My Vote- sell Cayuna, and use the money to improve the local camps.
Alan Schroeder- Scoutmaster troop 8 Leroy, MN
From Ken Senholtz, Troop 105, Albert Lea
The concensus among adult leaders at our Troop is to sell the Mankato office, NOT any camps, especially Cuyuna. Camps are what Scouting is all about.
From Bill Richards, Troop 19, Westbrook
Selling Cuyuna is like Selling your birthright. There are other builginds but there will not be another land area that is preserved and as useable for Scouts and family campers. Look at some of the other option such as partial sale and connecting with the DNR. I am a little out of the loop on the financial inner workings but the building in Mankato stands out as a significant problem as does the recruitment and advertisinfg efforts for uses of the camps by Scouts and other groups.
From Sam Peterson, Troop 41, Wells
If you get rid of camping, how are some of us scouts supposed to get some of our merit badges
From Fred Peterson, Troop 41, Wells
Camping helps earn merit badges. Keep Cuyuna & Norseland, improve them. Consider letting Cedar Point go?
From Brian Hendricks, Troop 60, Fairmont
I would support the sale or lease of unused / undeveloped Cuyuna land to the DNR or a similar organization for wetland or wildlife conservation programs. I am opposed to any additional land being sold for commercial or residential development.
From Dennis Bannister, Troop 80, Jackson
I think that maybe a smaller part of Cuyuna could be sold or leased to bring in funds to help reduce the deficit involving the scout store building. Some of the proceed from the proposed sale were marked to improve the existing local camps and I feel we could get some of the building materials donated locally, thus offsetting the amount needed to update the local camps, in turn offsetting the amount available to put against the building deficit, in turn reducing the amount of land that needs to be sold.
From Joe Loughmiller, Troop 57, Fairmont
There are several high quality long-term camping facilities in adjoining councils. Let's be wise with our resources.
From Linda Mohwinkel, Venture Crew 55, Truman
Over the last couple of years, I have had the pleasure of being in all three of the Twin Valley Council camps for training or with one or both of my sons. It is hard to imagine scouting without these camps. Yes, I know that the camps need updating and that the Council has a debt problem. I just don't believe that selling camps is the way to relieve that debt. This winter, I had the opportunity to stay with our Venturing Crew in Cuyuna's Family Camp and walked the area that is proposed for sale. I believe the loss of Family Camp will mean a loss in our quality camp staff and will diminish the Cuyuna experience for our youth. And, after all, isn't it all about the youth!?! Thank you.
