AN ACT MAKING AN APPROPRIATION OF SPECIAL FUNDS TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF THE STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027.
Summary
SB 3077 is an annual appropriations bill for the Mississippi State Board of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Advisory Committee for Fiscal Year 2027. It provides $369,241 in special funds to cover the board’s operating expenses for the year beginning July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2027. Of that amount, $186,280 is designated for personal services, including salaries, wages, and fringe benefits, and the bill authorizes two permanent positions and no time-limited positions.
The bill also sets detailed spending and personnel conditions. It requires compliance with the state’s Variable Compensation Plan, limits transfers out of the personal services category, restricts salary actions that would exceed the appropriation, and governs vacancy funding, escalations, and headcount changes. It further directs the agency to maintain detailed accounting and personnel records, follow procurement preferences for the Mississippi Industries for the Blind when bids are equal, avoid obligations beyond its appropriation, and reserve funds for any ITS charges tied to cloud migration or system upgrades under the Cloud Center of Excellence Act.
Impact
SB 3077 does not create a new regulatory program or amend the board’s licensing authority; instead, it funds the board’s operations and imposes fiscal controls for FY 2027. Its practical effect is to authorize the expenditure of special funds for the board’s staffing and administrative costs while reinforcing existing state budget, personnel, and procurement rules. It also references existing statutes governing compensation, spending limits, and cloud-related IT migration costs, thereby tying the board’s budget to those broader state requirements.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the Senate 51-0 and the House 119-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcript was provided, and there is no indication of significant debate or opposition in the available record.
Contention
No notable substantive contention is reflected in the available materials. Because this is a routine appropriations measure, any potential points of concern would likely relate to the level of funding, staffing limits, or the bill’s restrictive spending conditions, but the recorded votes show no opposition. The only technical issue apparent from the text is a duplicated section numbering for Section 6, which does not appear to have affected passage.