Here are some of the projects funded by the $700 million infrastructure deal
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
CNBC
34 minutes ago
- CNBC
Beauty is an ‘insidious force in women's financial lives,' says 'Rich Girl Nation' author — here's how to overcome it
There are many unique hurdles that women face when it comes to money, such as the wage gap and caregiving responsibilities. Yet, there's another challenge in women's financial lives that is less-discussed — beauty costs, which can be an "insidious force in women's financial lives," said Katie Gatti Tassin, author of the new book "Rich Girl Nation: Taking Charge of Our Financial Futures." More from Personal Finance:She made up to $110,000 a year as a nanny for the ultra-richMost women investors share a common regret: reportWhat the Senate Republican tax, spending bill means for your money Tassin, who is also the founder of "Money with Katie," describes beauty expenses as a "hot girl hamster wheel." There's a whole industry dedicated to profiting on women's insecurities, she said, and it shows up in women's budgets. CNBC spoke with Tassin in late June about how women can escape the "hot girl hamster wheel," and what to do instead with their Teresa Solá: The first chapter of your book talks about the so-called "hot girl hamster wheel." Can you describe what that is? Katie Gatti Tassin: The "hot girl hamster wheel" is the collection of recurring expenses that are necessary to maintain what I like to call the "acceptable feminine appearance." Every single dollar that you spend will function like a commitment to keep spending more money in the future because of the nature of aesthetic enhancement: Your body is eventually going to reject all of these interventions that you're making. Anybody who's ever gotten acrylic nails is familiar with this struggle, where they grow out and then your nails underneath are brittle and discolored. ATS: What expenses fall under this type of spending? KGT: Typically, for most women, it's hair, it's nails, it's skincare. Things that are more about form than function, is probably a good way to put it. Buying toothpaste does not count. Even though that's still a personal care purchase, because the toothpaste is doing a job for you, it's about hygiene. Whereas, Crest White Strips would probably count because this is something that you're doing to intervene with how you look and how you are perceived. It can take a form that we accept as baseline feminine maintenance or upkeep, and that's really what I want people to take a closer look at for themselves. ATS: How does one fall prey to it? KGT: If you feel like the way that you look matters, that's probably because you are accurately picking up on signals that it does. We know that "pretty privilege" is real, and so I want to be careful not to insinuate that anyone who's falling for this is being made a mark, or is reacting to forces that are completely fabricated or artificial. It is true that beautiful people are treated better and are accommodated. We know that. So in some ways, it's a rational path to start walking down because you sense that there is some return on that investment. But what I want to bring people back to is, beauty is a depreciating asset by design. Unlike investing in actual capital — which will grow with time, it will become more valuable — when you invest in beauty, the opposite is happening. It's going to require more and more cash to extend that half-life. ATS: It sounds like this is not by accident, particularly for women. Why is that? What dynamics are at play? KGT: I just had a wonderful interview on my show with a woman named Tressie McMillan Cottom [who is a sociologist and writer], and I think she really nailed it. She said beauty is about power. Beauty is the only power that women can wield; they can use it, but they can never own it. My perspective is that women are socialized to view beauty as the most powerful and important social capital that is worth their time to pursue. But I do think as individuals, we have the ability to positively influence one another and give one another permission to opt out — and maybe you're not opting out all the way. I think a lot of this does come down to survival. ATS: You mentioned in the book that the subject matter was "mysteriously absent" from personal finance books and sites you've frequented in the past. Why do you think that is? KGT: The majority of personal finance books and the majority of the personal finance field has historically been written by and for men, which means that men have shaped in subtle and overt ways this field with their experiences, their preferences and their priorities. By the way, I'm not knocking them. I learned a lot reading the men's money blogs, but obviously they are not going to be able to guide me on, "Hey, this is why your full highlights routine is making you broke." It was just completely out of their scope of reference. ATS: You provide a strategy to cut back on such expenses called the "hot girl detox." Is this useful to strike a balance? KGT: I think it's a useful exercise for all the spending that you do. It's just about giving yourself the gift of that insight by sitting down, doing the simple math and then getting curious and experimenting with, "Is this thing giving me the value that I want, and if it's not, what could I try instead?" You list out all the beauty and personal care spending that you do in a given year, and you annualize those costs. You're going to figure out how they relate back to what you're bringing in income. You're going to start at the bottom and experiment with removing one thing at a time and seeing how it feels. If you're like me and many other women who have gone through this process, what you're probably going to find is that you are going to get back not just an extraordinary amount of money, but time and mental energy, too. ATS: Once the reader performs their detox, what should they do with the extra cash? KGT: The goal really is for that money to go to work for you and your future. What that's going to look like will depend on the situation that you're presently in. If you have a lot of high-interest debt, then the best thing for you to do with that money is to start attacking the debt. If you don't have debt, but you also don't really have any cash savings, then saving that money in a high-yield savings account and giving yourself that cash cushion is probably the next best step. If you've done both of those things already, investing for your future is the best possible thing that you can do. It's the best gift that you can give yourself.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Unqualified' Friend Humiliated During Senate Confirmation to Key Ambassador Post
President Trump's pick for U.S. ambassador to Singapore faced a heated grilling in his Senate confirmation hearing in which he struggled to answer questions about the city-state. It took barely ten minutes for Dr. Anjani Sinha—who is not an expert in global affairs or trade, but an orthopaedic and sports surgeon who owns a chain of practices on the East Coast—to reveal his apparent lack of knowledge about Singapore as he melted down live on television, in a clip that has now gone around the world. Facing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Indian-born Florida-based doctor boasted he was a 'lifelong bridge builder.' Seemingly unconvinced that this, or his background, made Dr. Sinha qualified for such a crucial post, Illinois Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth went to town. Duckworth asked Dr. Sinha if he knew the size of the United States trade surplus with Singapore. Dr. Sinha initially guessed $80 billion, before revising it to $18 billion. Duckworth informed him it was actually $2.8 billion. Not a great start. Next, Duckworth asked Dr. Sinha about Trump's looming 10 percent tariff on Singaporean goods, and how he would sell it to Singapore. Dr. Sinha meandered through half-sentences before landing on a shrug: 'The dialogue is not closed. The door is not closed.' Smelling blood, Duckworth pressed harder. 'When is Singapore going to be the ASEAN chair?' she asked, referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional bloc. Dr. Sinha didn't know. It's 2027, he was informed by Duckworth. 'What does holding the chairmanship entail for Singapore? Can you name one thing?' Duckworth pressed. At first, Duckworth's question was met with silence—before Dr. Sinha responded with incoherent filler, leading the combat-veteran senator to unload on the gormless clinician. 'I just feel you are not taking this seriously,' she snapped. 'You think this is a glamour posting—that you're going to live a nice life in Singapore—when what we need is someone who can actually do the work.' Describing him as 'unqualified' for the key role, she went on: 'You are not currently prepared for this posting, period, and you need to shape up and do some homework.' The exchange detonated on Singaporean social media, where the BBC reported that one viewer quipped Sinha was 'more Embarassador than ambassador.' Another asked whether Trump's tariff or Trump's envoy was the bigger insult. Yet despite his real-time humiliation, the nominee's prospects remain very much alive. Republican Lindsey Graham—who introduced Sinha as 'a friend of President Trump for over a decade'—controls the committee's gavel, and the GOP's Senate majority means party-line votes can still hand the surgeon the keys to America's most strategic outpost in Southeast Asia. Donald Trump hailed Sinha as a 'highly respected entrepreneur' when he nominated him in March. The U.S. Department of State went further still, saying in May that with 'his deep social and cultural ties to the Indo-Pacific region, Dr. Sinha is uniquely positioned to relate to its key stakeholders [and] his appreciation for Singapore's role as a financial him well qualified to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Singapore.' The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats warn Trump's DOGE cuts threaten government funding talks
Senate Democrats are warning the Trump administration's effort to claw back funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting programs threatens bipartisan negotiations to fund the government ahead of a September shutdown deadline. Republicans are ramping up efforts to try to pass a package of more than $9 billion in funding cuts requested by President Trump last month. But the push faces staunch opposition from Democrats, who say the efforts by the executive branch to undercut previous funding decisions made on a bipartisan basis by Congress could further erode trust between the two sides in current talks. 'How are we supposed to negotiate a bipartisan deal if Republicans will turn around and put it through the shredder in a partisan vote,' Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said from the floor Thursday. 'This entire package next week should be rejected outright.' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also called it 'absurd' for Republicans to expect Democrats to 'play along with funding the government' if their GOP colleagues 'renege on a bipartisan agreement by concocting rescissions packages behind closed doors that can pass with only their votes, not the customary 60 votes required in the appropriation process.' Democrats are referring to a package of funding cuts Senate Republicans hope to take up in the coming days that calls for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides some funding to NPR and PBS. Congress has until July 18 to pass the legislation under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House last month that allows the Senate to approve the funding cuts with a simple majority vote, bypassing likely Democratic opposition. Most funding bills, including the measure that allocated the foreign aid and public broadcasting funding in March, need to overcome a 60-vote threshold. Trump officials have signaled more rescissions packages could be on the way if Republicans are able to push the cuts through Congress. But not even all Republicans are thrilled with the idea, with some worrying about how it will affect current funding negotiations. 'I don't like rescissions,' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a spending cardinal, said during a meeting this week to advance funding bills. 'I don't like the rescission package that we're going to be dealing with. I don't like the whole, the whole exercise of rescissions, particularly at a time when we're actually trying to advance appropriations. To me, it seems you've got a disconnect here.' Her comments come as actions by the executive branch in recent months have already complicated bipartisan talks. Fears rose of a potential government shutdown earlier this year as Trump battled Democrats over the administration's efforts to freeze funding previously approved by Congress. While Senate Democrats eventually — and reluctantly — helped pass a GOP-crafted, seven-month stopgap to prevent a shutdown in March, the party has continued to wage an aggressive campaign against the administration's ongoing operation to reshape the federal government and cut federal spending. As the Senate Appropriations Committee considered its first batch of government funding bills for fiscal year 2026 on Thursday, the latest actions by the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hung over the proceeding. 'The challenges we face and the threats to this very process are greater than ever before, with the president and administration intent on ignoring laws that we write and seizing more power for themselves,' Murray said during the hearing. 'And of course, for the first time ever, we are operating now on a partisan full year continuing resolution for all 12 of our funding bills, which turned over more say on how our constituents taxpayer dollars get spent to unelected bureaucrats than any of us should be comfortable with in the face of these immense challenges and threats,' she added. The committee was able to advance two funding bills, greenlighting dollars for agricultural programs, rural development and the legislative branch. But negotiators failed to advance their annual Justice Department funding bill due to a dispute over the administration's plans to relocate the FBI's headquarters in Washington, D.C. Members are hopeful the committee will be able to resume consideration of the funding bill as soon as next week while negotiations continue. But there could still be trouble on the horizon as the Senate prepares to tackle the president's rescissions request. Asked by reporters this week whether he expects the Senate Appropriations Committee to hold more markups for funding bills this month, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a senior appropriator, said, 'We'll have to see what happens on these rescission bills, right? 'Because if Republicans vote in a partisan way, to take these unilateral cuts from programs that had bipartisan support that obviously undermines the whole process, right?' Van Hollen said. 'How can you trust anything that's agreed to if they turn around the next day and undo an agreement. So, that would be a huge problem.' The package presents a major test of how easily Republicans can lock in cuts sought by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. Some Republicans are optimistic about the rescission package's chances of passage. Many in the party have long scrutinized the scope of funding for foreign aid and accused public radio and television of political bias. But changes could be necessary to win sufficient backing from Senate Republicans. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is among a group of Republicans who have shared concerns about how the public broadcasting cuts would impact rural stations. 'We've got Native American radio stations. A number of them are in very rural areas, and they rely very heavily on this particular source of funding,' Rounds said. 'And probably more than 90 percent of all their funding comes through this one source, whereas, if you're talking about public broadcasting and so forth, in other areas, we know those areas where there is political dislike for some of the activities.' 'These Native American radio stations are not in that category,' he said. Rounds and other senators sharing similar concerns have floated the possibility of potential carveouts to protect some local stations as leaders make a push to approve the cuts. 'I told them that I have to have this resolved before I can vote to move it forward,' Rounds told The Hill on Thursday. Other Republicans are airing concerns about proposed cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and other global health programs. 'These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but they're incredible instruments of soft power,' Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has repeatedly said she would not vote for PEPFAR cuts, said in a hearing in the rescissions package last month. Republicans are expecting to have a chance to make changes to the bill as part of a marathon voting session known as a 'vote-a-rama' in the coming days. But at least one GOP senator is pushing against internal 'side deals' after the Senate GOP leadership recently drew headlines for making last–minute changes for certain states in Trump's latest tax and spending cuts bill to secure its passage. 'If senators want to offer amendments within the rules, they should be able to offer amendments. What I don't want to see happen,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), another spending cardinal, told reporters this week. 'I want to have a full and fair amendment process. 'I want to see people being able to offer their ideas, and let's vote yea or nay in front of God and country. I don't want to see a wrap-around amendment at the end that reflects a lot of side deals,' he added. 'I'm tired of seeing people getting special deals to vote yes. I think that it's immoral and the wrong way to legislate.'
