Hot Springs council boosts volunteer fire subsidy to $100,000; defers hiring new police officer amid budget shortfall

At a special meeting, the Hot Springs City Council heard public comment from the volunteer fire department and moved to increase the city’s annual subsidy to the department to $100,000, the mayor and multiple council members said. The council approved reallocating modest line items — including suggested reductions to Historic Preservation Commission and Boys & Girls Club allocations — to cover part of the increase while staff and council agreed to meet regularly with the department to review large one‑time needs.

The council heard a detailed plea from Ken Tomseggard, who described the fire department’s training, mutual‑aid arrangements and aging apparatus and urged the council to address replacement and repair needs. Tomseggard told the council: “That’s millions of dollars in premium that’s being saved because of [the] fire department.” Council members responded with a mix of sympathy and practical concern about near‑term city finances.

Mayor (unnamed in transcript) recommended a modest increase from the city’s prior $90,000 subsidy to $100,000 and proposed funding the change by reallocating $5,000 from the Historic Preservation Commission and $5,000 from the Boys & Girls Club lines for the coming budget year. “I recommend funding that by reallocating the $5,000 from HPC and the $5,000 from the Boys and Girls Club,” the mayor said during the discussion; the council signaled consensus to adopt that change while directing staff to formalize the adjustments in budget documents.

Council members stressed the volunteer department’s value — response times and mutual‑aid coverage were repeatedly cited — while also raising concerns about longer‑term replacement costs for frontline apparatus. Members referenced NFPA guidance and discussed replacement cost estimates for ladder and pumper apparatus that ranged from several hundred thousand to more than $1 million for new vehicles.

The meeting also turned to a separate, higher‑cost staffing request from the police department: adding one full‑time officer. Staff presented two scenarios for the general fund: a projected deficit of about $12,312 without adding the officer and a $109,750 projected shortfall with the officer included. As one council member summarized staff figures, the difference placed a recurring six‑figure commitment on the city’s unassigned fund balance if approved now. Several council members voiced support for the officer on public‑safety grounds; others said the city should avoid establishing a recurring obligation that it cannot sustain without additional revenue or cuts.

Rather than take a roll‑call vote to add the position during the session, the council continued the discussion. Several members said they would pursue additional savings and revenue next year and keep the officer request a priority for future budgets; others signaled they could accept a small shortfall this cycle while working to shore up revenues.

Procedural actions on unrelated items included a motion to waive council pay for the special meeting, which passed by voice vote, and a motion to adjourn at the end of the session.

Next steps: staff will update the budget documents to reflect the $100,000 subsidy to the volunteer fire department and the suggested reallocations; the police‑officer request remains under active council discussion and may return to a future meeting for a formal vote.