An Act For The Office Of The Treasurer Of State - Amendment 74 Property Tax Appropriation For The 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.
Summary
HB1109 is an annual appropriation bill for the Arkansas Office of the Treasurer of State. It authorizes $1.75 billion for fiscal year 2025-2026 to be used for the distribution of Amendment 74 property tax funds to counties from the Uniform Tax Rate Trust Fund. The bill is framed as a budget measure rather than a policy change, and it is tied to the Treasurer’s constitutional and statutory role in redistributing property tax revenues under Amendment 74.
The act also includes standard fiscal controls and compliance language. It requires that spending follow the appropriation, applicable procurement and accounting laws, the Revenue Stabilization Law, salary procedures, and Department of Finance and Administration rules. It further states legislative intent that funds be used consistently with agency requests, executive recommendations, legislative recommendations, and related budget materials. An emergency clause makes the act effective July 1, 2025, to ensure uninterrupted administration of the program for the new fiscal year.
Impact
HB1109 does not create a new tax or alter the underlying property tax structure; instead, it appropriates funds for the Treasurer of State to carry out the existing redistribution of Amendment 74 property tax revenues to counties. Its practical effect is to authorize and fund the annual flow of local property tax dollars through the state treasury mechanism for FY2025-2026, while reinforcing compliance with Arkansas fiscal and budgetary laws. The bill primarily affects the Office of the Treasurer of State, county governments receiving distributions, and the state’s budget administration process.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed third reading in the House by a 100-0 vote and in the Senate by a 33-0 vote, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcripts are available, and the voting record suggests consensus around the need for the appropriation and its routine budgetary function.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive opposition or debate in the available materials. Because the bill is an appropriation for a constitutionally required distribution, any potential concerns would likely have centered on budget execution, timing, or the size of the appropriation rather than the policy itself. However, the unanimous votes and lack of committee discussion indicate that no notable points of contention were documented.