There has been a lot of talk going around about the reason for the three different votes taken for the purchase of the new sanitation trucks. What follows is Board Vice-Chair, Tucker Omohundro’s explanation as to why three votes were necessary.
First Vote
Here is a link to the original trash truck motion, which was made and passed by the Hot Springs Village POA Board on February 17, 2021. Omohundro said when the Board originally voted on February 17, sales tax was not listed in the calculations.
2nd Vote
Coreena Fetterhoff, HSVPOA Controller, and Board Treasurer said, “the 2nd vote was to account for the fact they thought we were tax-exempt and therefore taxes and a 1% finance charge increase (for not being tax-exempt) needed to be included in the proposal. During this 2nd vote, the size of the trucks was changed to avoid the Federal excise tax as well. The decrease in size avoided the FET and not pursuing the asphalt patch trailer covered the cost of the sales tax increase. This vote took place on April 1, 2021.”
In general, Arkansas nonprofit corporations are not exempt from sales taxes in the state; however, there are a few exceptions for certain charities, churches, and food distribution agencies. HSVPOA is a non-profit corporation but we are required to pay sales tax on our purchases.
3rd Vote
Fetterhoff stated, “then two weeks later the Board had to come back for the third vote because during that time frame an 11% steel surcharge was imposed increasing the price by almost $38k.”
As time was of the essence, the second and third votes were taken by an email vote because staff needed to lock in the interest rate and the price.
By Cheryl Dowden with help from Tucker Omohundro & Coreena Fetterhoff
✺ ✺ ✺ ✺ ✺
Thank you for reading. If you like, please comment below; we love to hear your opinion. Thank you for keeping the comments polite and on topic. Please use your real name. If you are an HSV Property Owner, please join us in our private Facebook Group. Click here to join the group. If you would like to submit an article for publication, please contact us through this website. Be sure to bookmark this website.
Jess Jackson
01/26/2022 — 8:09 pm
I waiting for the part where this proposal was presented in its final form to the membership and their feedback, did we do a trial run in a hilly area of the village, and have a representative number of residents attempt to negotiate these cans up and down a hill. I must have missed that part
Diana Podawiltz
01/26/2022 — 9:20 pm
Why wasn’t a lease/buy study done? This is a standard business practice for a transaction of this size?
Without this we do not know if it would’ve been a better financial decision to buy at least 1 of the trucks. Rotate usage on various routes to extend the life of purchased truck.
Tom Blakeman
01/26/2022 — 9:29 pm
There was never “time was of the essence” on any part of this.
Kirk Denger
01/26/2022 — 9:37 pm
Where are the links to the 2nd and 3rd secret meetings? There should be no reason for secrets from Property Owners here.
This is a bank loan with interest, not a lease.
The sales pitch was $1.7 million that ended up $2.13 million and counting, all to save $249,000 for one supposedly needed truck.
Let’s take a look at that supposed dire need. 3 trucks picked up 9,200 homes only working 4 days a week. That is 3,000+ homes each. They supposedly needed 1 more truck because of the new home building. Have we built 3,000 new homes last year?
This great plan includes continuously borrowing money for new trucks every 2 years.
Elizabeth H Berry
01/26/2022 — 9:59 pm
This was all passed within a few weeks of a full board. Four board members made this decision.
I would like to see an amortization account of this “loan”. At the end of the two year “lease” will this loan be paid in full before another “loan” is made for the new trucks in the next two years. This information is usual when getting a “loan” from a bank. We deserve to have access to this information.
Kirk Denger
01/26/2022 — 10:22 pm
2 of the 4 Directors were appointed.
It was projected that the balance would not be paid in two years, but rolled over into a new loan.
Derek Gordon
01/27/2022 — 6:07 am
Thank you Cheryl, Tucker, Kirk for keeping us informed on the true facts….
Mark Quinton
01/27/2022 — 8:58 am
If the need was established because of the threat of rising costs, won’t replacing them with new trucks defeat the purpose when we pay the inflated price in two years?
What do we do with the old trucks? There must be some value to account for.
Tom Blakeman
01/28/2022 — 6:23 pm
Well, if you read the memos it seems that (at the time this deal was done) we still owe $150 K on the existing trucks (those with the screeching brakes due, most likely, to lack of maintenance) and supposedly we would sell them to recoup that money. So now we have some sort of a new lease/ purchase arrangement on these new ones which will expire in 25 months. And then what?
So, you are spot on! No better, probably worse off long term.
Melinda Alvord
01/27/2022 — 10:11 am
My question is: will the truck brakes still squeak? That’s how I know they are in the neighborhood and approaching my house so I need to hustle my trash out.
John Szczepaniak
01/27/2022 — 2:58 pm
I will put my bin out on the night before. It looks fairly sturdy enough to deter most wildlife.
Thomas
01/28/2022 — 10:51 am
Can we now just place items in the bin without having to bag them?
HSVP C
01/28/2022 — 11:34 am
Thomas, everything has to be bagged. You can use individual kitchen garbage bags that are tied/closed if you prefer.
Thomas
01/28/2022 — 3:16 pm
Thank you kindly Cheryl. Have a great day!
David Ellison
01/29/2022 — 9:31 am
I have seen these “side-loading” trucks in operation outside the Village. My question is who picks up all the trash that falls on the ground or blows out of the truck driving down the road after pickup because driver can’t see if all trash was secured?? Hope new trash trucks won’t Trash the Village.