An Act For The Arkansas State University - Mountain Home Appropriation For The 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.
HB1226 is an annual appropriation bill for Arkansas State University–Mountain Home for fiscal year 2025-2026. It authorizes funding for the university’s regular salaries, extra help, matching costs, operating expenses, contingency, and a separate cash-funds budget. The bill also sets maximum numbers of authorized positions and salary caps across administrative, academic, public safety, maintenance, and support classifications, including faculty, vice chancellors, IT staff, and part-time faculty.
The bill provides $4,615,410 in state-appropriated funds and $16,525,000 in cash-fund authority, for a combined total of $21,140,410. It includes an emergency clause making the act effective July 1, 2025, so the university can continue operations without interruption at the start of the fiscal year. As an appropriation measure, it does not create broad new policy, but it controls how state and cash funds may be spent by the institution and requires compliance with Arkansas fiscal, procurement, and higher-education spending laws.
HB1226 affects state law by establishing the spending authority, staffing limits, and salary ceilings for Arkansas State University–Mountain Home for FY2025-2026. It operates within Arkansas’s budget and appropriations framework, tying expenditures to the Revenue Stabilization Law, State Procurement Law, General Accounting and Budgetary Procedures Law, and Higher Education Expenditure Restriction Act. The bill directly impacts ASU–Mountain Home, its employees, and its ability to hire, pay, and fund operations, capital outlay, debt service, and other institutional expenses.
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support for the bill, with 99-0 passage in the House and 32-0 passage in the Senate on third reading. There were no committee transcripts or recorded debate snippets provided, and the bill’s content is a routine appropriations measure, which is consistent with the lack of visible controversy. Overall, the sentiment appears procedural and favorable, reflecting broad legislative agreement on funding the university for the upcoming fiscal year.
No specific points of contention are evident in the provided record. Because the bill is a standard annual appropriation for a state university, any potential concerns would likely relate to budget levels, staffing authorizations, or the mix of state versus cash-fund spending, but none were raised in the available transcripts. The unanimous votes suggest no organized opposition from either chamber.