SB130 is the annual appropriation act for Arkansas State University for fiscal year 2025-2026. It authorizes funding for personal services and operating expenses across the ASU system, including Arkansas State University-Jonesboro, system administration, heritage sites, and the Delta Center for Economic Development. The bill sets maximum numbers of employees and salary caps for a wide range of administrative, academic, support, and athletics positions, and it also authorizes extra-help and temporary employees.
The measure appropriates $79,022,197 in state operations funding and $223,896,158 in cash-funds spending authority, for a combined total of $302,918,355. It includes line items for regular salaries, extra help, overtime, benefits matching, operating expenses, capital outlay, funded depreciation, contingency, capital improvements, debt service, promotional items, and resale. The act also contains standard fiscal compliance language requiring adherence to state procurement, budgeting, salary, and higher-education expenditure laws, and it takes effect July 1, 2025 under an emergency clause.
SB130 does not change substantive higher-education policy; instead, it renews and structures the legal authority for Arkansas State University to spend public and cash funds during the 2025-2026 fiscal year. It establishes spending limits, staffing ceilings, and salary ranges that govern ASU’s operations and constrain expenditures under state fiscal-control laws. The bill directly affects Arkansas State University, its campuses and programs, and the state agencies that oversee budget execution and compliance.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed third reading in the Senate 33-0 and in the House 91-4, indicating strong bipartisan approval. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests it was treated as a routine budget measure rather than a contested policy proposal.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the available committee materials, and the vote totals suggest limited opposition. Any disagreement likely would have centered on budget size, staffing levels, or allocations among university units, but the record provided does not identify particular objections or sponsors of dissent. The bill’s emergency clause and large appropriations are standard features of an annual university appropriation and do not appear to have generated notable controversy.