Here are some of the projects funded by the $700 million infrastructure deal
Construction on the Robert Street Bridge on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025, in Saint Paul, Minn. (Photo by Ellen Schmidt/Minnesota Reformer)
After bipartisan legislative leaders publicly pronounced an infrastructure bill dead for the year, they resurrected it during closed-door negotiations and shepherded the $700 million deal through the Legislature during a one-day special session Monday.
The infrastructure bill is called a 'bonding bill' because the state government issues bonds — i.e. borrows money — to pay for the projects. Sixty percent of both the House and Senate must vote 'yes' to allow the state to issue bonds, so bonding bills require robust bipartisan support. This one passed 116-15 in the House and 57-10 in the Senate.
The bill distributes money across the state to a wide variety of projects. In some cases, the funding will go to a state agency, which has discretion over where exactly the money goes; in other cases, lawmakers directed money to a specific project.
The DFL-controlled Legislature passed a $2.6 billion infrastructure package in the 2023 session, including $1.5 billion in bonds. In 2020, lawmakers passed a $1.9 billion bonding bill.
Here are the biggest-ticket items:
$176 million to the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority to build, upgrade and repair municipal water treatment plants.
$84 million to Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, mostly for asset preservation; $24 million will go toward a new transportation center at Alexandria Technical and Community College.
$80 million to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, largely for road and bridge repairs.
$60 million to the University of Minnesota.
$67 million for a new Bureau of Criminal Apprehension headquarters in Mankato.
$55 million for a new 50-bed psychiatric facility on the campus of the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center.
$44 million to the Department of Natural Resources for asset preservation, accessibility, flood mitigation and more at state parks.
$40 million for repairs and upgrades of state prisons.
$29 million to the Minnesota Housing Finance Authority, mostly for the rehabilitation of public housing.
$16 million to the Metropolitan Council, the vast majority for metro-area sewer work and $1 million for tree planting.
$13.7 million to the Minnesota Zoo, mostly for a new animal hospital.
$11.5 million for the Capitol complex, mostly to make one of the underground tunnels connecting the buildings compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The rest is for asset preservation and security improvements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
an hour ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
45 minutes to pack up a lifetime as Pakistan's foreigner crackdown sends Afghans scrambling
TORKHAM, Afghanistan (AP) — The order was clear and indisputable, the timeline startling. You have 45 minutes to pack up and leave Pakistan forever. Sher Khan, a 42-year-old Afghan, had returned home from his job in a brick factory. He stared at the plainclothes policeman on the doorstep, his mind reeling. How could he pack up his whole life and leave the country of his birth in under an hour? In the blink of an eye, the life he had built was taken away from him. He and his wife grabbed a few kitchen items and whatever clothes they could for themselves and their nine children. They left everything else behind at their home in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Born in Pakistan to parents who fled the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the ensuing war, Khan is one of hundreds of thousands of Afghans who have now been expelled. The nationwide crackdown, launched in October 2023, on foreigners Pakistan says are living in the country illegally has led to the departures of almost 1 million Afghans already. Pakistan says millions more remain. It wants them gone. Leaving with nothing to beat a deadline 'All our belongings were left behind,' Khan said as he stood in a dusty, windswept refugee camp just across the Afghan border in Torkham, the first stop for expelled refugees. 'We tried so hard (over the years) to collect the things that we had with honor.' Pakistan set several deadlines earlier this year for Afghans to leave or face deportation. Afghan Citizen Card holders had to leave the capital Islamabad and Rawalpindi city by March 31, while those with Proof of Registration could stay until June 30. No specific deadlines were set for Afghans living elsewhere in Pakistan. Khan feared that delaying his departure beyond the deadline might have resulted in his wife and children being hauled off to a police station along with him a blow to his family's dignity. 'We are happy that we came (to Afghanistan) with modesty and honor,' he said. As for his lost belongings, 'God may provide for them here, as He did there.' A refugee influx in a struggling country At the Torkham camp, run by Afghanistan's Taliban government, each family receives a SIM card and 10,000 Afghanis ($145) in aid. They can spend up to three days there before having to move on. The camp's director, Molvi Hashim Maiwandwal, said some 150 families were arriving daily from Pakistan — far fewer than the roughly 1,200 families who were arriving about two months ago. But he said another surge was expected after the three-day Islamic holiday of Eid Al-Adha that started June 7. Aid organizations inside the camp help with basic needs, including healthcare. Local charity Aseel provides hygiene kits and helps with food. It has also set up a food package delivery system for families once they arrive at their final destination elsewhere in Afghanistan. Aseel's Najibullah Ghiasi said they expected a surge in arrivals 'by a significant number' after Eid. 'We cannot handle all of them, because the number is so huge,' he said, adding the organization was trying to boost fundraising so it could support more people. Pakistan blames Afghanistan for militancy Pakistan accuses Afghans of staging militant attacks inside the country, saying assaults are planned from across the border — a charge Kabul's Taliban government denies. Pakistan denies targeting Afghans, and maintains that everyone leaving the country is treated humanely and with dignity. But for many, there is little that is humane about being forced to pack up and leave in minutes or hours. Iran, too, has been expelling Afghans, with the UNHCR, the UN's refugee agency, saying on June 5 that 500,000 Afghans had been forced to leave Iran and Pakistan in the two months since April 1. Rights groups and aid agencies say authorities are pressuring Afghans into going sooner. In April, Human Rights Watch said police had raided houses, beaten and arbitrarily detained people, and confiscated refugee documents, including residence permits. Officers demanded bribes to allow Afghans to remain in Pakistan, the group added. Searching for hope while starting again Fifty-year-old Yar Mohammad lived in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir for nearly 45 years. The father of 12 built a successful business polishing floors, hiring several workers. Plainclothes policemen knocked on his door too. They gave him six hours to leave. 'No way a person can wrap up so much business in six hours, especially if they spent 45 years in one place,' he said. Friends rushed to his aid to help pack up anything they could: the company's floor-polishing machines, some tables, bed-frames and mattresses, and clothes. Now all his household belongings are crammed into orange tents in the Torkham refugee camp, his hard-earned floor-polishing machines outside and exposed to the elements. After three days of searching, he managed to find a place to rent in Kabul. 'I have no idea what we will do,' he said, adding that he would try to recreate his floor-polishing business in Afghanistan. 'If this works here, it is the best thing to do.'
