<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2viWBl_1CikZCW100" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2viWBl_1CikZCW100" width="1171" height="937" ></figure>Patty Mueller knew what she was walking in to when she attended the June 15 Blooming Prairie City Council meeting.“I first want to acknowledge the elephant in the room,” the state representative from House District 23B said: The lack of funding from the state legislature to help pay for the work on U.S. Highway 218 through Blooming Prairie.The Minnesota Department of Transportation slated the stretch of road for reconstruction and reconfiguration, initiating the project scoping in 2018.But soil tests in advance of the work revealed significant chemical contamination throughout the area that must be remediated, pushing the project back multiple times – as costs continue to mount.The city had prefunded its portion of the design for the project, which includes replacing the public utilities’ water man and the city-owned sanitary sewer infrastructure. Both lie under the existing U.S. 218, and likely date back to between 1951 and 1954.The water and soil, though, must be treated when the new highway is constructed – all the way to the depth of a sanitary sewer line that will be 16 feet underground.Relocating the lines is not feasible, and while state funds are available for help with petroleum remediation, no funding exists for chlorinated volatile organic compound contamination, the commercial/industrial waste that pollutes the groundwater and soils in Blooming Prairie.The hope was that the circumstances would warrant funding from the state’s bonding bill.“We were told it was fully funded and in the bill on Saturday evening, but completely out by the time the bill was finalized on Sunday evening” when the legislative session ended, said Brett Grabau, of Stantec, the city engineer.The advice from local lawmakers – Mueller, Sen. Gene Dornink, Rep. Tom Sexton – and others was to push to be on the Project Priority List for two revolving loan funds, one for drinking water and the other a wastewater fund.Both are administered by the Public Facilities Authority, and require multiple steps to determine if the city qualifies for the low-interest loans or a grant.A public hearing is also required; councilors approved scheduling that for 6:45 p.m. July 13.“I hope that you’ve heard from Tony that we worked diligently within 12 hours to get you guys in front of PFA and to get all of your applications for it. My team worked very quickly,” Mueller said, referencing City Administrator Tony Martens.“We know that you don’t have money specifically with you right now, but the process is moving forward, and that’s really exciting. We did intentionally put more money into PFA so that you could be a part of that,” she said. “I know it’s not exactly how you were hoping to get money, but it wasn’t a dead end, so hopefully that is encouraging to you.”Mueller also updated the council on “putting teeth” into a bill to stem fraud; attempts to return some of the state’s $3 billion surplus to taxpayers through one-time tax deductions; increased medical assistance rates for rural and critical access hospitals; updated software with stronger accountability measures for the social services system; and school safety measures.</div></body>

Block Source: steelecountytimes.com

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

Patty Mueller knew what she was walking in to when she attended the June 15 Blooming Prairie City Council meeting. “I first want to acknowledge the elephant in the room,” the state representative from House District 23B said: The lack of funding from the state legislature to help pay for the work on U.S. Highway 218 through Blooming Prairie.

BP seeks another funding source for U.S. 218

NewsBreak

Patty Mueller knew what she was walking in to when she attended the June 15 Blooming Prairie City Council meeting. “I first want to acknowledge the elephan

BP seeks another funding source for U.S. 218

Comments / 1