Video & Transcript : 'Iowa Code Chapter 321' :

Page 3 of 500
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 4/9/26

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • :04:03.040><c> presumption</c><00:04:03.680><c> that</c> chapter 13 create a presumption that chapter
  • </c> chapter 13. chapter 13.
  • You have to follow Chapter 13."
  • </c> code name called Project Bigfoot. code name called Project Bigfoot.
  • And again, what this is Chapter 13."
Bills: HF4077 , HF3809 , HF3639 , HF4478 , HF3363 , HF3874
Summary: The Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the minutes from March 25 and March 26, then took up House File 4077, a bipartisan bill authored by Representatives Greenman and Roach. The bill would prohibit municipalities from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities that restrict disclosure about land development, economic development, or publicly funded projects, while preserving existing Chapter 13 data practices rules and trade secret protections. The authors argued the bill is needed to prevent secret agreements and backroom decision-making that undermine public transparency, and they moved that the bill be re-referred to the general register. Several local officials and residents testified in support, including a St. Louis County commissioner, the mayor of Lonsdale, and residents from Farmington and Hermantown. Supporters said NDAs had been used in connection with data center and other development projects to keep elected officials and the public in the dark, eroding trust and limiting community input. They described the bill as a common-sense transparency measure and said existing law already protects legitimate trade secrets. Opposition came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership, which argued that NDAs are often necessary in early-stage economic development discussions to protect sensitive business information and remain competitive with other states. They warned the bill could discourage investment, jobs, and tax growth, and said it would impose a one-size-fits-all state mandate that limits local discretion. Committee members then debated whether the bill was too broad and whether it should be narrowed to data centers; supporters responded that the issue extends beyond data centers to other forms of economic development. A roll call vote was requested on the motion to re-refer the bill to the general register, but the final vote result was not stated in the transcript excerpt.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 3/24/26

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • just seems to be a lot of duplications for the protections and remedies that are available under chapter
  • 13 and it may also cause some chapter 13 and it may also cause some conflicts.<00:39:56.160><c> Uh,<
  • It would amend chapter 13 to include a data privacy provision for data on individuals that is created
  • It<00:56:46.280><c> would</c><00:56:46.400><c> amend</c><00:56:47.359><c> chapter</c><00:56:47.720><c
  • 13 to include a It would amend chapter 13 to include a data<00:56:49.400><c> privacy</c><00:56:49.920