HB 1128 revises Indiana’s public-private partnership (P3) rules for qualifying projects. Before a governmental body issues a request for proposals or quotations, the bill requires a public comment hearing on the project’s necessity, with advance newspaper notice and a detailed agenda. After an operator is selected, but before development or operation begins, the governmental body must consult with an outside public financial planning entity, obtain a report verifying the project’s financial feasibility, and make that report public.
The bill also strengthens the required contents of public-private agreements. It requires performance and payment bonds in an amount of at least 100% of the cost to design and construct the project, and it adds disclosure requirements for any imputed interest rate and for any availability payments. The agreement must also include safeguards for default, termination, service continuity, public liability insurance, maintenance oversight, financial reporting, and procedures for transferring the project or assuming duties if the operator defaults or the agreement ends.
Impact
HB 1128 would amend IC 5-23-8-2 to impose additional procedural, financial, and disclosure requirements on state and local governmental bodies entering public-private agreements for qualifying projects. It would expand public notice and hearing obligations, require independent financial feasibility review, mandate public disclosure of key financing terms, and require reporting of availability payment information to the Department of Local Government Finance. The bill would also increase bonding requirements and reinforce protections for the public and governmental body in the event of default or cancellation.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally pro-transparency and pro-accountability, with its structure focused on public notice, independent financial review, and disclosure of financing terms. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill seems designed to address concerns about oversight and fiscal risk in P3 arrangements.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the added compliance burden and potential cost to governmental bodies and private operators. Requiring a public hearing before procurement, an external feasibility report, 100% bonding, and public disclosure of imputed interest and availability payments could be viewed as increasing project transparency but also slowing project delivery and raising transaction costs. The bill’s emphasis on financial safeguards suggests concern about hidden liabilities, while any opposition would likely come from entities that favor more flexible P3 contracting or less public disclosure.