Interim Economic & Community Development Director Darren Jablonski gave an overview of the county’s role in economic development, explaining the typical project funnel from idea exploration to permitting and construction and describing why confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) appear at different stages.

Jablonski said inquiries range from fully disclosed projects to those where little information is revealed; NDAs can enable staff to provide targeted technical input (zoning, traffic, utilities) without exposing proprietary business details. He said confidentiality is often professional courtesy during early due diligence but that projects moving toward public subsidy or permitting will enter public processes where disclosures increase.

That overview prompted a lengthy public‑comment period. Matt Baumgartner, speaking for the Chamber, defended NDAs as a routine tool that lets potential developers and public staff exchange sensitive information needed to evaluate viability, adding that NDAs do not mean a decision has been made and that public hearings occur if public investment is considered. Several residents — including Kathy Peterson, Susan Daley (Indivisible), Joanne Bates and Jonathan Thornton — expressed strong concerns about NDAs in practice, citing a local Hermantown data‑center example. Speakers said NDAs had limited community notice, complicated environmental review, and prevented residents and some local officials from learning project details in a timely way.

Commissioners then debated. Several called for a workshop and clearer policy to differentiate staff confidentiality during early technical assistance from elected officials’ obligations to constituents; one commissioner (Grimm) said elected officials signing NDAs should be banned. Commissioner Nelson defended signing NDAs as a pragmatic tool to keep the county competitive for large projects, noted he has signed NDAs in the past, and estimated substantial potential tax revenue tied to development. The debate included procedural questions about whether a motion was required before public comment; County Attorney Kim Mackey recalled past practice allowing commissioner comment on presentations. Commissioner Nelson moved to accept Director Jablonski’s report so the board could proceed; the motion was seconded and ultimately accepted after a roll‑call clarification about abstention rules.

What happened next: The board voted to accept the presentation and public comment were received; several commissioners signaled they want a dedicated workshop and policy language clarifying whether elected officials may sign NDAs and how staff confidentiality is handled. Community members asked for clearer disclosure timing, especially where environmental or land‑use effects are possible.

Quotes from the meeting:
"An NDA does not mean a decision has been made. It simply provides space to explore the facts, costs, infrastructure needs, and potential impacts without compromising competitiveness or sensitive business information," said Matt Baumgartner, representing the Chamber.

"Transparency — that's what we voted when we checked your name. That's what I thought I was voting for… NDAs do not offer that," said Kathy Peterson, a resident from Hermantown, reflecting public skepticism about NDAs in environmental or neighborhood‑sensitive projects.

Next steps: Multiple commissioners requested a workshop on NDAs and proposed policy options to clearly separate staff technical confidentiality from elected officials’ accountability to the public.