AN ACT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR.
SB29 is an annual appropriation bill for the Arkansas Office of the Lieutenant Governor for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It authorizes funding for personal services and operating expenses, including salaries for up to five employees: a chief of staff/legal counsel, communications/policy director, two lieutenant governor security officers, and an executive assistant/scheduler. The bill sets maximum salary rates for each position and establishes the total appropriation at $672,787, drawn from the State Central Services Fund.
The bill also includes standard fiscal controls and compliance language requiring expenditures to follow state procurement, accounting, budgetary, revenue stabilization, and salary administration laws. It contains legislative intent language tying spending to the agency request and budget materials, and an emergency clause making the act effective July 1, 2026 so the office can continue operating without interruption. According to the bill context, SB29 was enacted as Act 151.
SB29 does not change substantive policy law; it amends state spending authority by appropriating funds for the Office of the Lieutenant Governor for fiscal year 2026-2027. Its effect is to authorize salaries, benefits, and operating expenses for the office and to set staffing and compensation limits for the year. It also reinforces existing fiscal oversight statutes by requiring compliance with Arkansas procurement, accounting, budgetary, and salary procedures laws.
The available record suggests the bill was routine and noncontroversial. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating opposition, and the measure advanced through the budget process to become Act 151. As an appropriation bill, it appears to have been treated as a standard annual funding measure necessary to keep the Lieutenant Governor’s office operating.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. Because the bill is a budget appropriation, any debate would likely have centered on staffing levels, salary amounts, or operating expenses, but no such objections or amendments are shown in the record. The absence of transcripts and votes suggests little visible disagreement in the available context.