Lawmakers press MEDC on nondisclosure agreements and local involvement for Mundy Township site

Representative Bagole said she was representing constituents near the Mundy Township site and told MEDC that a nondisclosure agreement “did not take into consideration the voice of the people who live there” and that she had “no seat at the table” while discussions proceeded.

Nut graf: Multiple committee members pressed MEDC leadership on when NDAs are appropriate, how the agency manages transparency for locally affected residents, and whether state protections such as clawbacks and public approvals adequately protect taxpayers and communities.

Director Quentin Messer responded that MEDC faces a tradeoff when companies request confidentiality during site selection and recruitment. Messer said such agreements can be a gating requirement to participate in a competitive process and argued the state’s public oversight steps follow any confidential phase: “MEDC only recommends projects. The Michigan Strategic Fund Board approves the process,” Messer said, adding that large funding approvals also come before the House and Senate appropriations committees under current practice.

Messer acknowledged the public‑process concerns and said nondisclosure agreements “should not be blanket” but that he would not want Michigan excluded from consideration by companies if MEDC refused to sign a requested NDA. He framed the balance as legal and competitive, citing securities-law risks and the need to preserve Michigan’s ability to compete for projects.

Representative Bridal asked whether MEDC’s actions preempt local land‑use decisions and Messer replied that “Michigan is a strong home rule state” and MEDC does not preempt local zoning or land‑use approvals. Bagole and other members pressed on timing and constituent notice; Bagole said lack of early information hampered her ability to represent residents during the site planning period.

Representative Harris and others raised accountability and taxpayer protection questions. Messer said MEDC agreements generally include clawback provisions and that MEDC maintains a compliance team; he said most agreements are performance‑reimbursable and contain provisions that guard against change‑of‑control evasion. He offered to provide legislative staff with specifics on clawbacks and compliance figures.

Ending: MEDC agreed to follow up with additional details, and members requested briefings on program limits, site‑readiness tools and how clawbacks and contract renegotiations are handled. No formal actions were taken; the exchange was recorded as committee testimony and inquiry.