An Act For The Department Of Parks, Heritage, And Tourism - Capitol Zoning District Commission Appropriation For The 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.
SB65 is an annual appropriation bill for the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism’s Capitol Zoning District Commission for fiscal year 2025-2026. It sets the maximum number of regular employees at three positions: an ADPHT program manager, an administrative analyst, and a planning/preservation coordinator, and it authorizes one temporary or part-time “extra help” employee when needed.
The bill provides funding for the commission’s operations from two sources: the Miscellaneous Agencies Fund Account and a designated cash fund. For operations, it appropriates $257,040, including $176,446 for regular salaries, $938 for extra help, $63,700 for personal services matching, and $15,956 for operating expenses. It also appropriates an additional $2,000 from cash funds for operating expenses. The act includes standard fiscal controls, requiring compliance with state procurement, accounting, budgetary, revenue stabilization, and salary procedures laws, and it contains an emergency clause making it effective July 1, 2025.
SB65 does not create new regulatory policy; it renews the legal authority for the Capitol Zoning District Commission to spend public funds and maintain staffing for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. It directly affects the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism and the commission’s ability to pay salaries, cover matching costs, and fund basic operating expenses. By setting spending limits and employee caps, the bill controls how state appropriations may be used and ties disbursements to existing fiscal management laws.
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and routine. It passed both recorded third-reading votes unanimously, with 34 yeas and 0 nays in the Senate and 97 yeas and 0 nays in the House. There is no committee transcript indicating debate or opposition, which suggests broad agreement on the need for the annual appropriation.
No notable substantive contention is reflected in the available record. Because SB65 is a budget and appropriation measure, any discussion would likely have focused on staffing levels, operating funding, and compliance with fiscal controls rather than policy disputes. The absence of recorded opposition or committee testimony suggests that legislators viewed the bill as a standard administrative funding measure for the Capitol Zoning District Commission.