A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning state and local administration.
HB 1104 would prohibit the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, the state, any state instrumentality, any other public authority, and anyone negotiating on their behalf from entering into certain economic development agreements that include nondisclosure or confidentiality provisions. The bill applies to agreements entered into after June 30, 2026, and covers deals involving tax incentives, payments in lieu of taxes, tax abatements, bonds, notes, loans, grants, rebates, and other economic development incentives.
Under the bill, these agreements could not contain language making the agreement or its terms confidential, or barring the parties from disclosing, discussing, describing, or commenting on the terms. The practical effect is to require greater public transparency in state and local economic development deals by limiting the use of NDAs in incentive agreements.
HB 1104 would add a new section to Indiana Code 5-28-5, creating a statutory ban on confidentiality clauses in specified economic development contracts and agreements executed after June 30, 2026. It would directly affect the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, state agencies, instrumentalities, public authorities, and their negotiators, and would apply to a broad range of incentive-based development arrangements. Existing agreements would not be affected by the bill’s prospective effective date of July 1, 2026.
No committee transcript or vote history is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence of support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a transparency-focused policy approach, but the available record does not show whether lawmakers or stakeholders viewed it favorably or raised concerns.
The main policy tension is between transparency and confidentiality in economic development negotiations. Supporters would likely favor public disclosure of incentive terms so taxpayers can evaluate how public money is used, while opponents may argue that confidentiality helps the state compete for projects, protect negotiating leverage, and preserve sensitive business information. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, specific objections or proponents cannot be identified from the record.