Hot Springs Board of Directors

January 27, 2026 Civic Briefing

Hot Springs Board Reviews $514K in Utilities, Equipment, and Water System Items at January 27 Agenda Meeting

The Board of Directors reviewed six resolutions totaling $513,638.88 in identified spending, covering a utilities answering-services contract (averaging ~$1,000/month), a Garland County IT services renewal, a $135,688.88 backhoe purchase, a $15,000 firefighting-vehicle lease extension, a $173,950 pressure-reducing valve purchase, and a $188,000 engineering services contract for waterline improvements.

Hot Springs Board of Directors Agenda Meeting January 27, 2026 Confidence: Medium Independent — not affiliated with the City of Hot Springs

Published: May 17, 2026 · Last updated: May 17, 2026

View source notes Watch meeting ↗

The short version

The Board reviewed but did not record final votes on six resolutions at this January 27 agenda meeting; the available record does not show any vote tallies.
The largest single item was a $188,000 contract with Hansen Engineering LLC for engineering design and construction management of 2026 and 2027 waterline improvement projects on four streets.
The city proposed buying $173,950 in pressure-reducing valves to protect the water distribution system near Lake Hamilton before the new water plant comes online, where pressures in certain areas are projected to rise from 81 PSI to 219 PSI.
A $135,688.88 Caterpillar backhoe would replace a 26-year-old machine at the transfer station that staff described as beyond economical repair.
A two-month, $15,000 lease extension for a loaner aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle was proposed while the city's own truck remains in maintenance due to parts delays.

By the numbers

Total identified spending

$513,639

Votes taken

includes procedural votes

Unanimous votes

Largest single item

$188,000

Resolution R2624 — Engineering Services Contract for Waterline Improvement Projects

Emergency / ratification items

Resident questions unanswered

Money approved

Item	Amount	Vendor	Vote	Source
Engineering Services — Waterline Improvement Projects	$188,000	Hansen Engineering LLC	Not recorded	`item:6`
Pressure Reducing Valves — Water Distribution System	$173,950	Instrument and Supply, Inc.	Not recorded	`item:5`
Caterpillar Backhoe — Transfer Station	$135,689	JA Riggs Tractor Company	Not recorded	`item:3`
ARF Vehicle Lease Extension — Airport emergency budget transfer	$15,000	Sedona Martin Emergency Group	Not recorded	`item:4`
Answering Services — Utilities Department	$12,000	Communication Business Services Inc.	Not recorded	`item:1`
Total identified spending	$524,639

Major decisions

Utilities Department Answering Services Contract

Item: Proposed one-year contract with four optional one-year renewals for telephone answering services for the utilities department, averaging approximately $1,000 per month.
Vote: Not recorded
Cost: Approximately $12,000 per year based on stated average of $1,000/month
Vendor / responsible: Communication Business Services Incorporated (CBSI)
Discussion level: Brief Brief presentation
Resident impact: Continuation of existing utility answering services; no change in service to residents is described in the record.
What the Board said or did: Staff reported that 13 proposals were received, a rate-and-rank committee selected CBSI as the highest-rated firm, and that CBSI has provided this service to the city for several years.
What remains unclear: The record does not show the final vote or whether any board member raised questions.
Source: item:1

Interlocal Agreement with Garland County for Information System Services

Item: Proposed biannual renewal of an interlocal agreement under which the city provides information system staff and partial director and assistant-director salary costs to Garland County. The agreement has been in place since 2009.
Vote: Not recorded
Cost: No dollar amount specified in the record for this agreement term
Vendor / responsible: Garland County, Arkansas
Discussion level: Brief Brief presentation
Resident impact: The record does not describe a change in services to residents. The city supplies three employees and a portion of two director-level salaries to the county under this arrangement.
What the Board said or did: Staff noted the county has been satisfied with the service and that regular performance meetings occur throughout the year.
What remains unclear: The dollar value of the city's staff contribution under the new term is not stated in the available record.
Source: item:2

Purchase of Caterpillar Backhoe for Transfer Station

Item: Proposed purchase of a new Caterpillar backhoe through the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing program to replace a 26-year-old machine described as beyond economical repair.
Vote: Not recorded
Cost: Cost: $135,688.88
Vendor / responsible: JA Riggs Tractor Company
Discussion level: Brief Brief presentation
Resident impact: The transfer station would receive functioning heavy equipment; no direct service disruption to residents is described in the record.
What the Board said or did: Staff explained the existing backhoe has experienced significant problems and that the fleet department recommended replacement. The purchase is part of the city's capital replacement program.
What remains unclear: The funding source for this purchase is not specified in the available record.
Source: item:3

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicle Lease Extension — Airport

Emergency / Ratification

Item: Proposed two-month lease extension for a loaner aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARF) vehicle while the city's own ARF truck remains in maintenance. This item involves a budget amendment to cover the cost.
Vote: Not recorded
Cost: Cost: $15,000 total ($7,500 per month for two months); requires a budget amendment
Vendor / responsible: Sedona Martin Emergency Group
Discussion level: Brief Brief presentation
Resident impact: The airport must maintain an ARF vehicle on-site to meet operational requirements; the lease extension keeps that coverage in place while repairs continue.
What the Board said or did: Staff said the city's truck is still delayed due to parts availability and that the airport director expects the city's vehicle back within 30 days. The two-month extension provides a buffer, and the city will pay on a pro-rata basis if the truck is returned before the 60-day period ends.
What remains unclear: The record does not specify which parts are causing the delay or the total time the city's ARF vehicle has been out of service.
Source: item:4

Purchase of Pressure Reducing Valves for Water Distribution System

Item: Proposed purchase of six pressure reducing and pressure sustaining valves — two 6-inch, two 8-inch, and two 12-inch — to protect the water distribution system when the new water plant comes online. Purchased under Arkansas sole-source procurement authority.
Vote: Not recorded
Cost: Cost: $173,950, funded from water bonds
Vendor / responsible: Instrument and Supply, Inc. (Clay Valve brand)
Discussion level: Moderate Questions or explanation from board or staff
Resident impact: Without these valves, water pressure in parts of the Lake Hamilton area could rise from 81 PSI to 219 PSI when the new plant comes online, which staff indicated would damage existing distribution lines. Valves will be installed along Mount Cargo Road and nearby low-lying areas.
What the Board said or did: Staff presented findings from a hydraulic water model review by Christ Engineers identifying the pressure risk. Staff noted delivery is expected in approximately three weeks and that city staff will handle installation of the smaller valves, with contractors potentially used for the larger ones.
What remains unclear: The record does not state which contractor(s) would install the larger valves or the estimated installation cost.
Source: item:5

Engineering Services Contract for 2026–2027 Waterline Improvement Projects

Item: Proposed contract with Hansen Engineering LLC for professional engineering design and construction management services covering waterline improvement projects in both 2026 and 2027.
Vote: Not recorded
Cost: Cost: $188,000
Vendor / responsible: Hansen Engineering LLC
Discussion level: Brief Brief presentation
Resident impact: Four streets are scheduled for water line upgrades in 2026: Highland Park, Huntley (off Malvin Avenue), Andover, and Walkway Drive (in the county).
What the Board said or did: Staff noted the projected construction cost for 2026 work is $1,602,230 and that board-approved capital improvement program funds for 2026 total $1.5 million, which staff described as providing adequate cushion. Engineering for both 2026 and 2027 projects is being procured together.
What remains unclear: The record does not identify which streets or areas are slated for 2027 upgrades, nor does it explain how projected construction costs exceed the approved CIP budget while staff characterizes the cushion as adequate.
Source: item:6

Locations affected

Mount Cargo Road area and low-lying areas near Lake Hamilton

Mount Cargo Road vicinity

Installation of pressure reducing and sustaining valves to manage increased water pressure when the new water plant comes online

Status: Planned
Highland Park

Hot Springs

Water line upgrade scheduled for 2026

Status: Planned
Huntley (off Malvin Avenue)

Hot Springs

Water line upgrade scheduled for 2026

Status: Planned
Andover

Hot Springs

Water line upgrade scheduled for 2026

Status: Planned
Walkway Drive (Garland County)

Garland County

Water line upgrade scheduled for 2026

Status: Planned
Hot Springs Memorial Field Airport

Hot Springs

Loaner ARF vehicle lease extended while city's own vehicle is in maintenance

Status: Ongoing
Transfer Station

Hot Springs

Backhoe replacement under consideration

Status: Planned

Watch list

Open follow-up issues we'll check on in future briefings.

Final vote outcomes for six resolutions

Open

The record does not show the final vote outcome for any of the six resolutions presented at the January 27 agenda meeting; the next briefing should confirm passage, amendment, or deferral of all six items.

Why it matters: Without recorded votes, there is no confirmation of board approval or disposition of these $513,638.88 in spending and contract items.
Next check: Confirm final vote outcomes at the subsequent regular Board of Directors meeting where these items are formally voted upon.

2026 waterline construction cost vs. approved CIP budget discrepancy

Open

The 2026 projected waterline construction cost ($1,602,230) exceeds the board-approved CIP budget ($1.5 million); staff described this as within an adequate cushion, but no explanation of how the gap would be covered appears in the record.

Why it matters: Understanding the funding source for the $102,230 shortfall is important for tracking capital plan implementation and budget accountability.
Next check: Request clarification on how the projected cost overrun is covered and whether additional appropriations or alternative funding sources are planned.

Backhoe purchase funding source

Open

No funding source was identified for the backhoe purchase; confirmation of which fund or program covers the $135,688.88 cost is worth tracking.

Why it matters: Transparency on capital asset funding helps verify budget allocation and planning accuracy.
Next check: Confirm the funding source (capital replacement fund, equipment reserve, etc.) at the formal vote or in minutes.

Garland County interlocal agreement cost

Open

The dollar value of the city's staff contribution to Garland County under the renewed interlocal agreement was not stated; this is relevant to understanding the full cost of the arrangement.

Why it matters: Public understanding of shared service costs and city obligations requires clarity on the financial value of the arrangement.
Next check: Obtain the cost of city staff and partial salary contributions under the renewed agreement.

Source notes

This briefing is based on the public records below. Every claim above can be traced back to one or more of these sources.

video: Meeting video
agenda: Agenda items 1–6

Confidence: Medium

Video transcript and six parsed agenda items are available; however, no recorded vote tallies appear in the available record, limiting confidence on final outcomes.

How we know this

We do not invent facts.
We cite source records.
We distinguish what happened from what remains unclear.
We use neutral language.
We correct errors when found. See corrections.