AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR.
HB1053 is the fiscal year 2026-2027 appropriation act for the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. It authorizes funding for the university’s regular salaries, matching funds, operating expenses, cash-funded operations, and specific set-asides for the William H. Bowen School of Law and the Nanotechnology Center. The bill also establishes the maximum number of employees and detailed salary caps for a wide range of administrative, academic, auxiliary, and support positions across the university.
The measure appropriates $72,517,228 for state operations, $162,298,699 for cash funds, $800,000 for Bowen School of Law expenses, and $2,000,000 for Nanotechnology Center expenses. It also authorizes up to 1,300 extra-help positions and sets a total maximum employee count of 1,988. The act includes standard fiscal controls requiring compliance with state procurement, accounting, budgetary, salary, and higher-education expenditure laws, and it contains an emergency clause making it effective July 1, 2026.
HB1053 does not create new substantive policy; it renews and structures the university’s authority to spend public and cash funds for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It affects state budget law by setting appropriations, salary limits, staffing ceilings, and spending categories for the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, including its law school and nanotechnology center. The bill also ties disbursements to existing fiscal control statutes and Department of Finance and Administration rules, thereby reinforcing current budgeting and expenditure requirements for the institution and its funded programs.
The available record suggests the bill was routine and broadly noncontroversial. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating debate, opposition, or amendments, and the bill ultimately became Act 167. As a standard appropriation measure for a public university, it appears to have been treated as a necessary annual budget bill rather than a contested policy proposal.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote details, there is no evidence of disagreement over the size of the appropriation, the staffing structure, the salary caps, or the allocations to the law school and nanotechnology center. Any potential concerns would likely have centered on budget levels, administrative compensation, or the distribution of funds among university units, but none are reflected in the record provided.