Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Paul council hears hours of public opposition to MIF extension for ForwardEdge (Lockheed Martin subsidiary) and votes
Summary
After a staff presentation on a requested one‑year extension for ForwardEdge's Minnesota Investment Fund loan, dozens of residents urged the council to deny the extension for ethical and economic reasons; council debated and then voted on a motion related to the extension (vote recorded in transcript; outcome language in record is inconsistent).
Council staff explained that the city applied for and passed along an $800,000 forgivable loan under the Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) to ForwardEdge ASIC LLC; ForwardEdge is a new company to Saint Paul that the city says planned to create 113 jobs, and the company reported creating 83 to date and requested a one‑year extension to meet its hiring targets.
Project manager Danielle Lorenz described the program’s structure, the original award, and that the city as the pass‑through applicant may consider a one‑year extension. Council members asked a series of technical and legal questions about the program, how the award would be adjusted pro rata if the job target is not met, and where any recovered funds would return (the transcript indicates returned funds go back to the statewide MIF pool).
During the public hearing, dozens of residents, veterans, community organizers and small‑business owners testified—many urging the council to deny the extension and to reclaim or redirect the forgivable loan funds because ForwardEdge is a Lockheed Martin subsidiary and because of concerns linking the company’s products to military uses and to federal operations affecting local communities. Speakers asked the council to audit city agreements that benefit contractors working with federal immigration enforcement.
Council debate followed public testimony. A motion to deny the extension was made and the roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript as “6 in favor, none opposed.” The clerk’s subsequent line in the record states “The resolution fails,” creating a transcript discrepancy. (The council later laid over related items and continued other public hearings as part of the meeting.)
