Nondisclosure agreements could become no-nos for municipalities

Google is behind a large-scale data center that could be part of a proposed 482-acre industrial project in Pine Island.

Yet the nearly 4,000 residents in the small community near Rochester don’t know much about the details, many arguing city officials have lacked transparency regarding Project Skyway since discussions began in late 2023.

“As residents, we only just found out about the data center in September 2025, and it was greenlit by the city in January 2026. Residents got four months of knowing about this project, while the city, the city engineer and the developer got over two years,” said Aubree Derksen, a Pine Island resident.

A similar story exists in Hermantown where a nondisclosure agreement prohibited the city from sharing information about Google’s proposed 1.8 million-square-foot data center, until a Data Practices Act request led to information becoming public.

In Farmington, public awareness about a data center project did not occur until an application was before the city council.

Rep. Emma Greenman

Nondisclosure agreements are commonly used legal contracts, often by technology companies negotiating with local officials to keep development projects, site locations, and infrastructure details from the public until the project gets the green light. The idea, proponents say, helps protect trade secrets and secure competitive advantages.

Rep. Emma Greenman (DFL-Mpls) wants to see this secrecy come to an end. So does the House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee, which approved HF4077 Wednesday via voice vote and sent it to the House Floor. No audible dissent was heard.

Sponsored by Greenman, the twice amended bill would prohibit municipalities from entering into a nondisclosure agreement or other contract restricting the municipality from disclosing information to the public, except that required by state or federal law. And a municipality would need to disclose any nondisclosure agreement or similar contract it has entered.

“There should be 100% transparency with the public,” said Rep. Drew Roach (R-Farmington).

Per the bill, a municipality is defined as “a county, home rule charter or statutory city, town, school district, housing and redevelopment authority, economic development authority, port authority, or any other political subdivision of the state with authority to enter into a contract for the use of real property, and includes any person acting in their capacity as an employee, elected official, appointed official, or other representative of a municipality.”

“Whether you like or don’t like data centers, the question is do you think the public should be involved in that decision,” Greenman said. “… The vast majority of conversations about economic development, about land use, are not happening with these NDAs.”

[MORE: Read submitted written testimony]

No one spoke against the bill, but Jonathan Cotter wrote about his concern of a blanket approach “that could unintentionally undermine economic development negotiations between municipalities and businesses.”

Cotter, the director of health care and commerce policy for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, cited not only the potential of trade secrets or a disruption of current business operations, but also a real estate perspective.

“When the identity of a prospective project developer becomes public during site selection, land prices for needed parcels can increase due to speculation. Projects that require assembling multiple parcels are particularly vulnerable to speculation. Once property owners know the identity of the developer, asking prices can quickly rise. This can substantially increase project costs and, in some cases, jeopardize projects that would otherwise bring jobs, tax base and economic activity to a community.”