AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REAPPROPRIATION.
SB61 is a fiscal-session reappropriation bill for the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. It reappropriates unspent balances from a prior capital improvement appropriation under Act 297 of 2025, allowing those funds to remain available beginning July 1, 2026 for the Department of Agriculture–Forestry. The money is drawn from the Arkansas Natural and Cultural Resources Grant and Trust Fund and is designated for the acquisition, management, stewardship, or preservation of state-owned lands, historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects.
The bill provides two reappropriation amounts: up to $950,889 and up to $415,000. It also includes standard fiscal controls limiting obligations to available state treasury funds, allowing the agency to supplement with grants, donations, federal funds, or unobligated cash income, and prohibiting use of general maintenance and operations funds for these projects. The act contains a legislative intent section tying spending to agency requests and budget materials, and an emergency clause making the act effective July 1, 2026.
SB61 does not create a new program or change substantive regulatory law; instead, it extends the availability of previously appropriated capital improvement funds for the Department of Agriculture. Its effect is to preserve spending authority for specific land, historic preservation, and stewardship purposes within the Arkansas Natural and Cultural Resources Grant and Trust Fund, while keeping the expenditure subject to state fiscal-control laws and appropriation limits. The bill affects the Department of Agriculture, especially the Forestry division, and the state statutes governing appropriations, budget execution, and disbursement controls.
The available context suggests the bill was routine and noncontroversial. It was sponsored by the Joint Budget Committee, had no recorded committee transcript debate, and no recorded votes in the provided materials. The bill’s progression to Act 84 indicates it moved through the legislative process without evident opposition or public dispute in the supplied record.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided transcripts or voting history. Because the bill is a reappropriation measure, any potential concerns would likely center on the use of leftover capital funds, the scope of eligible preservation and land-management projects, or whether the reappropriated balances should instead revert to the treasury. However, none of those issues appear to have been raised in the supplied materials, and there is no indication of disagreement among legislators in the record provided.