A company seeking approval to build a data center should have to explain what its project would mean for the community. How much water will it require? How much electricity will it need? What infrastructure has to be built, and who pays for it? What incentives or commitments is the developer requesting from local government?
Residents should receive those answers early enough to question them and influence the decision. A nondisclosure agreement, commonly called an NDA, should not become a way to keep that information out of public view while a project moves forward. Certain trade secrets and sensitive security details deserve protection. But those protections need clear boundaries. They should not provide blanket cover for withholding information about public resources, taxpayer obligations, or community impacts.
An NDA is not a public-records exemption
A government agency cannot create a public-records exemption simply by signing an agreement with a private company. Florida’s Attorney General has explained that confidentiality must have a basis in law. The agreement itself does not establish one. When officials say information cannot be released because of an NDA, residents should ask which law authorizes withholding it.
Section 119.07 requires the records custodian to identify the applicable exemption, including its statutory citation. When only part of a record is protected, that portion must be redacted and the remainder released. A requester can also ask for a specific written explanation. Developers may request confidentiality. Government officials remain responsible for determining whether withholding a record is legally justified.
Lawmakers proposed a broader prohibition than they passed
The original version of Senate Bill 484 proposed prohibiting agencies from entering agreements that restricted public disclosure about potential data center developments. It also proposed making agreements that violated that provision unenforceable.
That prohibition did not survive in the final legislation. The enacted law instead narrowed an existing economic-development confidentiality provision.
Section 288.075(2) allows qualifying information about business-location or expansion plans to remain confidential following a written request made before an economic incentive agreement is signed. The initial period can last up to twelve months, ending earlier if the information is otherwise disclosed. The statute generally permits an additional twelve-month extension under specified conditions. The 2026 amendment excludes data center information from that extension.
The initial protection remains, however, along with separate exemptions for qualifying information. Twelve months is therefore not a universal deadline for releasing every record connected to a project. Lawmakers limited one avenue for extended confidentiality. They did not adopt the broader NDA prohibition originally proposed.
What should legitimately remain confidential?
Residents do not need proprietary computing technology or detailed security vulnerabilities to understand how a development would affect their community.
Florida law protects qualifying trade secrets held by government agencies. The information must meet the applicable legal definition. A developer’s decision to label a document “confidential” or “proprietary” does not, by itself, establish that protection. Certain internal building drawings and security-related records may also qualify for protection. Those exemptions have limits. Section 119.071(3)(c), for example, protects specified internal-layout and structural drawings while expressly excluding comprehensive plans and site plans submitted or approved through the development-review processes listed in that provision. Other exemptions would still require separate consideration.
The proper approach is to identify the protected information, explain the legal basis, and disclose the rest.
What developers should have to disclose
Lawmakers should establish explicit requirements for public disclosure of the information communities need to evaluate these projects.
That should include:
Project responsibility: The applicant, property owner, and parties responsible for development commitments.
Development scale: Acreage, buildings, construction phases, and expected full buildout.
Resource demands: Projected electricity demand, water sources, average and peak water requirements, and cooling methods.
Infrastructure costs: Required improvements, proposed payment arrangements, and potential public obligations.
Public financial commitments: Requested incentives, subsidies, and government expenditures.
Community impacts: Noise assessments, mitigation measures, and proposed operating conditions.
Economic claims: Construction jobs, permanent positions, and anticipated public revenue, with supporting assumptions.
These are proposed disclosure requirements. Existing exemptions can affect particular records today, which is why reform must address the underlying law as well as the agreements. Developers should be required to provide public versions of their submissions. Where a specific technical detail qualifies for protection, the public version should still explain the project’s demands and impacts.
Disclosure after approval comes too late
Timing is a central part of this problem. Information released after a rezoning vote or infrastructure commitment cannot give residents the same opportunity to influence that decision. Early discussions about possible locations may involve legitimate commercial concerns. As a project moves toward government approvals and public commitments, the case for disclosing community-impact information becomes stronger.
Lawmakers should require that information to be available before consequential decisions, with a defined review period that gives residents time to examine it. Posting a large volume of documents shortly before a vote may make them accessible. It does not necessarily give the public a reasonable opportunity to understand them.
Put responsibility on the parties seeking secrecy
A stronger framework should require developers seeking confidentiality to identify the specific material, cite the claimed legal protection, and explain why it applies.
Officials should independently assess those claims and document their reasoning. Confidentiality should also be reviewed as a project advances, rather than carried forward automatically. Government agreements should expressly acknowledge public-records obligations. Agencies should maintain a public register showing the existence, scope, and review dates of confidentiality agreements, subject to any applicable exemptions.
These changes would make it easier to distinguish a justified redaction from an overly broad claim of secrecy.
Give communities access to comparable information
Standardized disclosures could also support a central public repository of data center information. Local governments could compare a proposed facility with operating developments of similar size, examining water consumption, electricity use, infrastructure costs, permanent employment, and documented economic results. Developers would submit projections during review. Designated owners, operators, or customers would report actual results once the facility begins operating, according to which party controls the information. Records would distinguish projections from measured results and initial operations from full buildout. Sensitive technical details would not be needed to make those comparisons useful. That would help communities evaluate claims before approval and assess whether commitments were met afterward.
Public decisions require public answers
A developer asking a community to approve a major project should expect scrutiny of its resource demands, costs, and promised benefits. Government officials should expect to explain the commitments they are considering and the evidence supporting them.
The ability to request confidentiality should come with clear limits and a requirement to justify what is withheld. Residents should not have to wait until decisions are effectively settled to learn what those decisions could mean for them. Lawmakers should establish earlier disclosure, clearer accountability, and public access to the information communities need. Protecting legitimate business information is reasonable. Allowing confidentiality to obscure the public impact of a development is a problem the law should explicitly address.
Sources and legislative records
Florida Statutes, Section 119.07: Public-records access, identification of exemptions, and release of nonexempt portions.
Florida Statutes, Section 288.075: Economic-development confidentiality and the data center exception to the additional twelve-month extension.
SB 484, original filed version: The proposed NDA prohibition, which was not enacted.
SB 484, final enrolled version: The final legislative text.
Florida Statutes, Section 119.0715: Protection of qualifying trade secrets held by an agency.
Florida Statutes, Section 119.071: Specified security and building-drawing exemptions, including their limitations.
Florida Attorney General opinion on confidentiality agreements and public records: An opinion involving personnel records that explains the broader principle that parties cannot create a public-records exemption by agreement.
Based on statutes and legislative materials reviewed October 30, 2026. Recommended reforms are proposals, separate from current legal requirements.