Arkansas House Bill HB1052

Arkansas 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/1/26
• Refer: 4/8/26
• Report Pass: 4/23/26
• Engrossed: 4/27/26
• Enrolled: 4/28/26
• Chaptered: 5/1/26
• Passed: 5/1/26

Caption

AN ACT TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION FOR STATE TURNBACK FOR COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES BY THE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF STATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2027; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Summary

HB1052 is the Arkansas fiscal-year 2027 appropriation act for state turnback funds administered by the Office of the Treasurer of State. It authorizes distributions to municipalities and counties from the Municipal Aid Fund and County Aid Fund, including general revenue turnback, special revenue turnback, and unanticipated special revenues such as proceeds from minerals, oil, and gas on federal military lands. The bill also appropriates money from the Property Tax Relief Trust Fund for county and city distributions tied to statewide property tax relief. The act sets specific dollar amounts for each category of aid, including $29.37 million in general revenues to cities, $215 million in special revenues to cities, $21.43 million in general revenues to counties, $230 million in special revenues to counties, $15 million in unanticipated special revenues to counties, $10 million to cities, and $450 million for county property tax relief. It also provides $2 million each for county and city distributions from property tax relief fund revenues, subject to available balances and certification by the Chief Fiscal Officer. In addition, the bill continues temporary provisions governing early-year loans from the Budget Stabilization Trust Fund to help local governments with cash flow, carry-forward rules for unspent aid, and a county responsibility provision related to deputy prosecuting attorney funding. As an appropriation measure, HB1052 primarily affects state budget administration rather than creating new substantive policy. It directs how state funds are to be transferred and distributed for local government support during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027, and it references existing statutory formulas in Arkansas Code for allocating aid to counties and municipalities. The bill also includes an emergency clause making it effective July 1, 2026, so the appropriations and related temporary provisions can operate at the start of the fiscal year. The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It passed the House 94-0 and the Senate 34-0, indicating broad bipartisan support for the annual local-government funding package. The absence of committee transcript material suggests there was little recorded debate or public contention in the available materials. The main points of potential contention, based on the text itself, are technical rather than political: the size and timing of the property tax relief distributions, the conditions under which those funds may be released, and the temporary loan and carry-forward provisions that govern local cash flow. The bill also preserves an older county funding obligation for deputy prosecuting attorneys, which could be of interest to counties because it affects how much general revenue is retained from their distributions. However, no specific opposition is reflected in the voting record provided.

Impact

HB1052 renews and funds Arkansas’s annual state turnback system for counties and municipalities for fiscal year 2026-2027. It appropriates money from the Municipal Aid Fund, County Aid Fund, and Property Tax Relief Trust Fund, and it directs the Treasurer of State to distribute those funds under existing statutory formulas and conditions. The bill also extends several temporary special-language provisions governing local-government loans, carry-forward of unspent aid, and county contributions toward deputy prosecuting attorney costs, while tying some distributions to certification of available trust-fund balances.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed unanimous, routine support in both chambers, passing the House 94-0 and the Senate 34-0. That vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a standard budget bill necessary to keep local aid flowing rather than as a controversial policy proposal. No committee testimony or recorded debate was provided, and the available history indicates broad agreement on the need for the appropriations.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, but the bill’s special-language provisions could draw scrutiny from counties and municipalities because they condition some payments on trust-fund balances and preserve repayment/retention mechanisms. The property tax relief distributions, the Budget Stabilization Trust Fund loan provisions, and the county retention for deputy prosecuting attorney funding are the most likely areas where local officials might focus on implementation details or adequacy of funding. No specific opposing viewpoint is documented in the provided materials.