HB1013 is an annual appropriation bill for the University of Arkansas Community College at Rich Mountain for fiscal year 2026-2027. It establishes the maximum number of authorized positions and salary rates for a range of administrative, academic, technical, maintenance, and auxiliary roles, including the chancellor, faculty, IT staff, student services staff, and food service and athletics positions. The bill also authorizes extra-help employment for up to 80 temporary or part-time workers.
The measure appropriates funds for both state operations and cash funds. For state operations, it provides money for regular salaries, matching costs, operating expenses, and contingency funding. For cash funds, it authorizes additional spending for salaries, extra help, matching, operating expenses, travel, professional fees, capital outlay, capital improvements, and debt service. The bill includes standard fiscal-control language requiring compliance with state procurement, budgeting, salary, and higher-education expenditure laws, and it contains an emergency clause making it effective July 1, 2026.
HB1013 affects state higher-education budgeting by setting the spending authority for the University of Arkansas Community College at Rich Mountain for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It does not create new substantive policy, but it governs how much the college may spend from state and cash-fund sources and defines the staffing and salary framework the institution may use. The bill also reinforces existing fiscal oversight statutes, including procurement, accounting, revenue stabilization, salary procedures, and higher-education expenditure restrictions.
The available context suggests the bill was routine and noncontroversial. It was a Joint Budget Committee measure, had no recorded committee debate or floor vote information in the provided materials, and was ultimately enacted as Act 96. That pattern is consistent with a standard appropriations bill that generally receives broad support as part of the state budget process.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided transcripts or voting history. Because the bill is an appropriations measure for a single community college, any disagreement would likely have centered on funding levels, staffing caps, or capital spending authority, but none of those issues are documented here. The absence of recorded opposition or debate indicates little visible controversy in the available record.