Hot Springs Council approves 1-year school resource officer agreement after debate over costs and supervision

The Hot Springs City Council on May 5 approved a one-year School Resource Officer (SRO) agreement with the Hot Springs School District for the 2025–26 school year, after discussion about how the city calculates the cost of the position, supervision arrangements and the officer’s call volume.

The finance officer presented a breakdown showing the city’s cost to employ a police officer at $30.86 per hour in base pay, rising to $40.73 per hour when benefits are included. Under the contract the school is offering $46,305 toward an officer assigned 40 hours per week during the school year. The council voted to accept the agreement by roll call; all members present voted yes.

Why it matters: Council members and staff framed the vote as both a budget decision and a public-safety issue. City staff argued the SRO handles hundreds of school-related incidents that would otherwise require patrol responses, while the school district cited the program’s educational and continuity benefits.

Council discussion and staff presentations Misty, the city’s finance officer, explained the cost math to council: a $30.86 hourly wage at 2,080 hours yields $64,188.80 in base salary; with employer-paid Social Security, Medicare, retirement contributions, insurance and other benefits the loaded annual cost becomes $84,717.38, or $40.73 per hour. Using 1,680 hours (40 hours × 4 weeks × 9 months as shown in the contract), the finance officer said the full city cost for the hours requested exceeds the school’s $46,305 contribution.

Hot Springs Police Chief Norton described operational reasons he supported the SRO arrangement. He said the current SRO, identified in discussion as Thomas, has been involved in 404 school-related incidents since the start of the school year; 112 of those incidents were self-initiated by the officer and 292 were calls the department otherwise would have had to answer. Norton listed training and program continuity — including that Thomas is the department’s DARE instructor — as additional reasons to retain a dedicated SRO rather than reassigning a regular patrol officer.

On supervision and hours: Chief Norton and council members said the contract’s language allows the superintendent and the chief to coordinate the SRO’s duties and does not create a management conflict; the chief said cooperative supervision is appropriate because the officer is a city employee working inside the school. Norton and others opposed reducing the officer’s assigned hours to reflect the school’s partial payment, noting the department would still respond to incidents if the officer were not present.

Overtime, paperwork and monitoring Council members pressed for clarity on overtime and recordkeeping. The contract sets regular duty hours (07:30–16:30, Monday–Thursday) and limits duty to no more than 40 hours per week; Chief Norton said the department’s pay period and scheduling practices reduce the risk of overtime and that the city will monitor hours and related overtime. Norton also noted that each call for service generates paperwork and follow-up work that contributes to the officer’s workload.

Vote and next steps Misty called the roll after the discussion; Aldermen Gary Telkamp, Linda Varvel, Hal Glanville, Bill Lukens, J.R. Huddleston and Larry Pratt all voted yes. The motion passed and the one-year SRO agreement was authorized.

The council directed staff to monitor hours, related overtime, and the operational impacts of the agreement; the contract specifies school–city coordination on the officer’s duties and a review prior to the next school year.

Ending: Council members commended the officer’s work and asked staff to return requested data and to evaluate the program during the contract term.