MROP (ORE/VRI)Special Assessment!

[gravityrules]

jmparker98223,

Well said.

 

[Garnet]

Would the BOD just spread out an SA over a number of years? The Tahoe Beach and Ski did that-$500 over 5 years. BUT it was for needed repairs (not new units in UT) and from what I understand (we purchased in year 5 of 5 year SA) the resort had gotten a bit run down. For TBS owners, the SA was worth it-we have a terrific location right on Lake Tahoe. Doesn't sound like you're getting much out of the SA?

 

[gravityrules]

lynnray,

Is Snow Canyon Villas in the Coral Ridge Townhome development? (see link) Since you are in the area, can validate where the new resort is actually located? The townhomes seem to match the given description (3 BR, 2.5 bath) and the developer mentioned (Split Rock Development). See the 20-22' model, it has 1532 square feet of living space.

http://www.coral-ridge.com/index.shtml

The number of RCI points you mentioned for Snow Canyon Villas (108,000) is almost 3 times the 38,000 points given for a MROP red week. I'm not trying to re-direct this thread, but I'd love to know what dollar figure Wroman is trying to get to convert a MROP week to RCI points. I've not had any personal experience with Wroman, but their reputation with TUGGERs and others in the TS industry seems to be poor. So why did the MROP board partner with these guys?

 

[Dean]

I don't have a dog in this fight but will point out that if the HOA wants a SA, they will likely do so. If the special meeting doesn't work out, they'll probably just do it over 2 or 3 years likely with a higher price tag in the long run.

 

[brg850]

MROP Special Assessment Updates!

I just got back home this afternoon from my New Year vacation and I still have not received any replies from MROP since more than a week ago. So I decided to give the board president Mr. Noel S. Hyde a call. For the phone number, I did Zabasearch in Layton/UT, the other phone number in Ogden/UT is probably his office number. He was at home when I called this evening and was kind enough to answer some questions.

According the Mr. Hyde, they were not aware of the bylaws when they sent out the special assessment letter. He also has instructed VRI/MROP NOT to collect the special assessment for now. They are planning on sending out the special member meeting by the end of this month and hold the meeting early next month. They will try get inputs and feedbacks from the members.

So please spread the words, inform other owners, call the board members and give them your inputs. Our voices and votes do count!

brg

 

[w879jr1]

Thanks

A big Thank You to brg for taking the actions you have. I hope many others will send you their thanks too.

I notice that you have posted this information on the MROP members forum so the good news should travel quickly. Hopefully Mr. Hyde will place a revised letter in the member area of www.multi-resorts.com.

On checking, I found that on the VRI/ORE web site the SA is no longer recorded as "due now", so Mr. Hyde's instructions appear to be in place. The opportunity members will have to discuss this matter with the board is to be welcomed.

 

[Passepartout]

BRG, I second the big Thank You for contacting Mr. Hyde about this. I wasn't aware of the conflict with the by-laws (hate reading legalese) until this thread appeared. The Coral Ridge addition looks usable for our family, but I can see how a SA isn't an applicable way to acquire more properties.

So, that aside, any clues as to what those who already paid the assessment ought to do?

Jim Ricks

 

[jmparker98223]

At 0820 PST on 01-07-08 the assessment was still on my account.

Don't go to sleep on this. Call and ask everyone you know to call.

 

[brg850]

More Updates!

I just called VRI/MROP again this morning. The project manager Terry Bricoo (800-440-9950 ext 112) was out of the office again to St. George, but I was able to talk to Lynn Larson (800-440-9950 ext 106). She was very helpful to provide some more information. She's also willing to answer other owner's questions so you can call her directly rather then waiting 20 minutes for a vacation/fee agent.

Their interpretations of Mr. Noel Hyde's were not to pursuit the special assessments aggressively. They will still collect the fee if you are willing to pay. If you have already paid the fee, it will be up to the voting results whether it will be refunded back to the owners or not. The special meeting will be held on Feb 6.

The Coral Ridge project in St. George is the replacement for Snow Canyon project. They are planning on selling 200 intervals from the 600 total intervals when the 12 units are done in a few months.

The remaining 400 intervals will be used together with other St. George intervals and storm damaged intervals as a pool that Member Class K with more than 1,000 members will have priority into. They still have to figure out a way to work this out and hope these members will not want to use this resort very often based on the past usages.

This means although MROP will own this resort, RCI point system will pretty much have access to 1/3 of the intervals, and there will be more owners with priority than available St. George intervals already. What are the chances for the rest of the owners who pay for the special assessments who want to use the St. George resort? Once in a BLUE WEEK!

As fas as the available unsold intervals when the resort is ready but before the next annual scheduling, their plan was to let owners use these intervals on the first come first server basis. So I suggested that maybe they can give the owners who are will to pay or fund the project some credits or bonus time in compensation.

We definitely need more people to contact Lynn Larson and Noel Hyde to give them feedbacks and alternatives rather than just a yes/no vote in the coming meeting.

brg

 

[shagnut]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! shaggy

 

[lynnray]

lynnray,

Is Snow Canyon Villas in the Coral Ridge Townhome development? (see link) Since you are in the area, can validate where the new resort is actually located? The townhomes seem to match the given description (3 BR, 2.5 bath) and the developer mentioned (Split Rock Development). See the 20-22' model, it has 1532 square feet of living space.

http://www.coral-ridge.com/index.shtml

The number of RCI points you mentioned for Snow Canyon Villas (108,000) is almost 3 times the 38,000 points given for a MROP red week. I'm not trying to re-direct this thread, but I'd love to know what dollar figure Wroman is trying to get to convert a MROP week to RCI points. I've not had any personal experience with Wroman, but their reputation with TUGGERs and others in the TS industry seems to be poor. So why did the MROP board partner with these guys?

Snow Canyon Villas is nowhere near Coral Canyon. I definitely need to get out to Snow Canyon Villas and find out what is going on, but based on a later post, it appears tha Coral Canyon is a replacement for Snow Canyon. I am going to try and call the Wroman salesman who "sold" me my points and see what I can find out. As to the dollor figure they wanted to convert a MROP week to RCI points, I am not sure, but will ask a friend of mine who was also at the presentation and was a MROP weeks owner. Will get back to you on that and anything else I find out.

 

[lynnray]

thanks

thanks brg for the info. we need to stay on top of this. will call Lynn Larson and Mr Hyde.

 

[lynnray]

Snow Canyon Villas is nowhere near Coral Canyon. I definitely need to get out to Snow Canyon Villas and find out what is going on, but based on a later post, it appears tha Coral Canyon is a replacement for Snow Canyon. I am going to try and call the Wroman salesman who "sold" me my points and see what I can find out. As to the dollor figure they wanted to convert a MROP week to RCI points, I am not sure, but will ask a friend of mine who was also at the presentation and was a MROP weeks owner. Will get back to you on that and anything else I find out.

I just talked to our salesman, formerly from Wroman, and basically he said that the Snow Canyon Villas are on hold for now, but wouldn't exactly elaborate. Split Rock Development is building units at Coral Canyon as a replacement. Wroman is no longer involved with MROP.

 

[brg850]

New Letter from Mr. Hyde

Here's the link to the new letter regarding the special meeting from Mr. Hyde dated tomorrow we will all receive soon.

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documents/special_assessment_meeting_letter.pdf


Link to Meeting Notice:

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documents/special_assessment_meeting_notice.pdf


Link to the Supplemental Budget:

http://www.multi-resorts.com/documents/special_assessment_supplemental_budget.pdf

 

[gravityrules]

Thanks BRG for all your work on this issue. So less than $20 per interval week in the special assessment is to pay off old debt. It appears about $100 per interval week is to pay off Coral Ridge loans that have already been made, with another $100 for 'Capital Reserve Fund Contrib - special assess.' which I assume is for yet to be incurred expenses associated with Coral Ridge (Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge appears to be the 'official' name). There's another almost $20 per interval week for 'WA State Taxes' and then another $8 or so for 'Reserve for Potential State Regulatory Costs'; Explanations for these are needed.

Since the SA is mostly about paying for the new Canyon Villas at Coral Ridge resort, I think it's fair for existing MROP owners to ask 'what's in this for me?' If it's just another resort where an MROP week could potentially (see brg's previous comment) be used, then this is a bad deal for existing MROP owners.

The previous SA letter says as much as $750,000 ( which sounds like an 'upper limit' to me) could be added to the Capital Reserve account by the sale of the new weeks at Coral Ridge. Why is that a good deal for the membership if we're paying over $2 million for the development? Is a $5000 per interval week cost ($2 million divided by 400 weeks) a good use of MROP funds? It's been common for MROP to acquire weeks in the past at other locations for 1/10th of that cost. If there's other information or benefits that I'm missing I would sure like to hear about that. Also what happened to those San Antonio and Las Vegas weeks that MROP said were being acquired? Has this project in St. George, where MROP already has weeks, killed off acquisitions in other areas?

 

[rkconnor]

Thanks brg. I am a new member having just purchased two weeks from a friend and my membership was being held up because of the levy that I didn't pay. In speaking with VRI today the are going ahead with paper work but I still see that the web site shows a maintenance fee of 250/wk owing. Please let me and others know who we should call to object this assessent. Thanks again Ron

 

[brg850]

MROP Contact Info

VRI/MROP Office

Lynn Larson 800-440-9950 ext 106, communicates with board members, very knowledgeable, also can provide new ownership info.

Terry Bricco 800-440-9950 ext 112, St. George Project Manager.

MROP Board Members

Current President: Noel S. Hyde (Utah)
http://whitepages.addresses.com/results.php?ReportType=34&qc=layton&qf=Noel&qn=Hyde&qs=UT

Past President: Chris Fonnesbeck (Utah)
http://whitepages.addresses.com/results.php?ReportType=34&qc=riverside&qf=Chris&qn=Fonnesbeck&qs=UT

MROP Contact Email: info@multi-resorts.com

To Leave feedbacks on MROP Web Site: http://members.multi-resorts.com/contact.php

To Post Messages on MROP Forum: http://forum.multi-resorts.com

 

[Jya-Ning]

Not owner, but look like the HOA will hold a special meeting,
http://www.timeshareforums.com/foru...es/53200-mrop-ore-vri-special-assessment.html

So, if owners want to go and think they will willing to take poxoy so it will be voted after a more detail examine the situation, it maybe good to try to coordinate the effort.

Jya-Ning

 

[brg850]

Proxy

I have not received the letter myself yet. Since I live near L.A. so we have to see who live near Salt Lake will be willing to be the proxy.

I am opposing the SA until MROP can come up with another plan to address these issues:

1. Financial responsibilities vs. acquiring new resorts from developer and increasing new membership intervals.

2. MROP still own less intervals then the total number of membership attached to the St. George resort. This is not just a mis-presentation, but another pending legal/bylaws issue as well.

3. Although the MROP office and the meeting will be held in Salt Lake, Utah, the ownership base has grown way beyond the Salt Lake, Utah area in the last few years. Instead of just building new condos in St. George, MROP probably can purchase some more intervals in other area near Utah through resale/wholesale that most of the owners can also use, such as Summer Bay Las Vegas or Sedona...

Let's call the board members and see if any one of them is also against the SA.

brg

 

[brg850]

Proxy/Ballot

I just received the proxy/ballot for the special assessment today.

The form itself is rather misleading and not well instructed as where/how you put in your vote regarding the special assessment instead of just putting in the board of trustees as the proxy holder. There is no yes/no check boxes for you to vote for the assessment neither.


The proper way to fill out the proxy/ballot is to:

1. Select a Proxy holder. If you can not go to the meeting, you can not be the proxy holder.

1a. If you do not know any owner going to the meeting. Circle "A" to chose board of trustees to cast your voting instruction.

1b. You know any owner that is going to the meeting in Salt Lake, you can put the person's name in "SPACE B". Make sure the proxy holder will be at the meeting.

1c. As an alternative, you can put Mr. Noel Hyde in "SPACE B", since he will be at the meeting for sure, and he is okay to cast your voting instruction.


2. Make sure to put in your voting instruction next to it (No or yes on the special Assessment).

Even if the Board of Trustees is the chosen proxy, if you write down the voting instruction and return it. They will have to vote based on your instruction.

Please do not only sign and return it without the voting instruction, then the board can do whatever they want to do with it. This will be the worst case.

I have talked to both of them to confirm this.

Noel Hyde (president)
White page listing - Noel Hyde

David Racker (treasurer)
Whitepage listing - David Racker

You can also call them or call MROP office to ask for more clear instructions or to challange this questionable proxy/ballot.

So please do put in your voting instruction and return the proxy ballot.

brg

 

[Kurt Brown]

Think That This Thread Should Be Moved Back To "buying, Selling, Etc."

I never check the western board and there are MROP timeshares here in Texas and elsewhere!! This is an important issue.

I just received a new "Official Proxy/Ballot"

The "ballot" does not allow me to vote; only to appoint the Board of Trustees or some individual who is actually planning on attending the meeting to vote on my behalf - however they so wish to vote!!!

The whole thing smells to me.

Are there any TUGgers who are planning on going to the February 6th meeting and who intend to vote AGAINST the special assessment? If so, please let me know so that I can specify your name on my "ballot".

Sincerely yours,
Kurt Brown
kjbrown@sprintmail.com
713-271-8039 phone

 

[brg850]

Special Meeting

Kurt,

Just saw this. Call MROP office and request it. It's Utah law.

Utah Code -- Title 16 -- Chapter 06a -- Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act

16-6a-708. Meetings by telecommunication.
(1) Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, any or all of the members may participate in an annual, regular, or special meeting of the members by, or the meeting may be conducted through the use of, any means of communication by which all persons participating in the meeting may hear each other during the meeting.
(2) A member participating in a meeting by a means permitted under Subsection (1) is considered to be present in person at the meeting.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE16/htm/16_02058.htm

brg

 

[bart12]

I just received the proxy/ballot for the special assessment today.

The form itself is rather misleading and not well instructed as where/how you put in your vote regarding the special assessment instead of just putting in the board of trustees as the proxy holder. There is no yes/no check boxes for you to vote for the assessment neither.


The proper way to fill out the proxy/ballot is to:

1. Select a Proxy holder. If you can not go to the meeting, you can not be the proxy holder.

1a. If you do not know any owner going to the meeting. Circle "A" to chose board of trustees to cast your voting instruction.

1b. You know any owner that is going to the meeting in Salt Lake, you can put the person's name in "SPACE B". Make sure the proxy holder will be at the meeting.

1c. As an alternative, you can put Mr. Noel Hyde in "SPACE B", since he will be at the meeting for sure, and he is okay to cast your voting instruction.


2. Make sure to put in your voting instruction next to it (No or yes on the special Assessment).

Even if the Board of Trustees is the chosen proxy, if you write down the voting instruction and return it. They will have to vote based on your instruction.

Please do not only sign and return it without the voting instruction, then the board can do whatever they want to do with it. This will be the worst case.

I have talked to both of them to confirm this.

Noel Hyde (president)
White page listing - Noel Hyde

David Racker (treasurer)
Whitepage listing - David Racker

You can also call them or call MROP office to ask for more clear instructions or to challange this questionable proxy/ballot.

So please do put in your voting instruction and return the proxy ballot.

brg

Funny, I just talked to Lynn Larson and she didn't provide any of this information about being able to write your preference on the so called "Official Proxy / Ballot", and when I complained to her about this not actually being a ballot, she said that I would have to find a member who is going to be at the meeting - write is name under "b" on the proxy, and then actually talk to him to tell him how I wish to vote.
Looks like the Board is really trying to make it difficult to vote "NO".

 

[bart12]

Special Meeting

I think we really need to find a member that is going to the meeting and is going to vote against the special assessment and then appoint that person as our proxy. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?

 

[brg850]

Funny, I just talked to Lynn Larson and she didn't provide any of this information about being able to write your preference on the so called "Official Proxy / Ballot", and when I complained to her about this not actually being a ballot, she said that I would have to find a member who is going to be at the meeting - write is name under "b" on the proxy, and then actually talk to him to tell him how I wish to vote.
Looks like the Board is really trying to make it difficult to vote "NO".

I know, I just talked to her myself yesterday. So the rule changes depends who you talk to. Now their are telling you they will only give out the ballot at the meeting, you will have to know someone that goes there.

If you look the new post on MROP forum, that's another story.
http://forum.multi-resorts.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_2

According the Utah Law. If you can not be there in person, you should be able to use the written ballot and request teleconference...

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE16/16_02.htm

Utah Code -- Title 16 -- Chapter 06a -- Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act

16-6a-704. Notice of meeting.
(1) A nonprofit corporation shall give to each member entitled to vote at the meeting notice consistent with its bylaws of meetings of members in a fair and reasonable manner.
(2) Any notice that conforms to the requirements of Subsection (3) is fair and reasonable, but other means of giving notice may also be fair and reasonable when all the circumstances are considered.
(3) Notice is fair and reasonable if:
(a) the nonprofit corporation notifies its members of the place, date, and time of each annual, regular, and special meeting of members:
(i) no fewer than ten days before the meeting;
(ii) if notice is mailed by other than first-class or registered mail, no fewer than 30 days, nor more than 60 days before the meeting date; and
(iii) if notice is given by newspaper as provided in Subsection 16-6a-103(2), by publication three separate times with:
(A) the first of the publications no more than 60 days before the meeting date; and
(B) the last of the publications no fewer than ten days before the meeting date;
(b) the notice of an annual or regular meeting includes a description of any matter or matters that:
(i) must be approved by the members; or
(ii) for which the members' approval is sought under Sections 16-6a-825, 16-6a-910, 16-6a-1003, 16-6a-1010, 16-6a-1102, 16-6a-1202, and 16-6a-1402; and
(c) unless otherwise provided by this chapter or the bylaws, the notice of a special meeting includes a description of the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called.
(4) (a) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, if an annual, regular, or special meeting of members is adjourned to a different date, time, or place, notice need not be given of the new date, time, or place, if the new date, time, or place is announced at the meeting before adjournment.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), if a new record date for the adjourned meeting is or shall be fixed under Section 16-6a-706, notice of the adjourned meeting shall be given under this section to the members of record as of the new record date.
(5) When giving notice of an annual, regular, or special meeting of members, a nonprofit corporation shall give notice of a matter a member intends to raise at the meeting if:
(a) requested in writing to do so by a person entitled to call a special meeting; and
(b) the request is received by the secretary or president of the nonprofit corporation at least ten days before the nonprofit corporation gives notice of the meeting.

16-6a-708. Meetings by telecommunication.
(1) Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, any or all of the members may participate in an annual, regular, or special meeting of the members by, or the meeting may be conducted through the use of, any means of communication by which all persons participating in the meeting may hear each other during the meeting.
(2) A member participating in a meeting by a means permitted under Subsection (1) is considered to be present in person at the meeting.

16-6a-709. Action by written ballot.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, any action that may be taken at any annual, regular, or special meeting of members may be taken without a meeting if the nonprofit corporation delivers a written ballot to every member entitled to vote on the matter.
(2) A written ballot described in Subsection (1) shall:
(a) set forth each proposed action; and
(b) provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.
(3) (a) Approval by written ballot pursuant to this section shall be valid only when:
(i) the time, as determined under Subsection (8), by which all ballots must be received by the nonprofit corporation has passed so that a quorum can be determined; and
(ii) the number of approvals equals or exceeds the number of votes that would be required to approve the matter at a meeting at which the total number of votes cast was the same as the number of votes cast by ballot.
(b) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in accordance with Section 16-6a-716, for purposes of taking action by written ballot the number of votes cast by written ballot pursuant to this section constitute a quorum for action on the matter.
(4) All solicitations for votes by written ballot shall:
(a) indicate the number of responses needed to meet the quorum requirements;
(b) state the percentage of approvals necessary to approve each matter other than election of directors;
(c) specify the time by which a ballot must be received by the nonprofit corporation in order to be counted; and
(d) be accompanied by written information sufficient to permit each person casting the ballot to reach an informed decision on the matter.
(5) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a written ballot may not be revoked.
(6) Action taken under this section has the same effect as action taken at a meeting of members and may be described as such in any document.
(7) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a written ballot delivered to every member entitled to vote on the matter or matters therein, as described in this section, may also be used in connection with any annual, regular, or special meeting of members, thereby allowing members the choice of either voting in person or by written ballot delivered by a member to the nonprofit corporation in lieu of attendance at such meeting. Any written ballot shall comply with the requirements of Subsection (2) and shall be counted equally with the votes of members in attendance at any meeting for every purpose, including satisfaction of a quorum requirement.
(8) (a) Members must be provided a fair and reasonable amount of time before the day on which the nonprofit corporation must receive ballots.
(b) An amount of time is considered to be fair and reasonable if:
(i) members are given at least 15 days from the day on which the notice is mailed, if the notice is mailed by first-class or registered mail;
(ii) members are given at least 30 days from the day on which the notice is mailed, if the notice is mailed by other than first-class or registered mail; or
(iii) considering all the circumstances, the amount of time is otherwise reasonable.

16-6a-712. Proxies.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the bylaws, a member entitled to vote may vote or otherwise act in person or by proxy.
(2) Without limiting the manner in which a member may appoint a proxy to vote or otherwise act for the member, Subsections (2)(a) and (b) constitute valid means of appointing a proxy.
(a) A member may appoint a proxy by signing an appointment form, either personally or by the member's attorney-in-fact.
(b) (i) Subject to Subsection (2)(b)(ii) a member may appoint a proxy by transmitting or authorizing the transmission of a telegram, teletype, facsimile, or other electronic transmission providing a written statement of the appointment to:
(A) the proxy;
(B) a proxy solicitor;
(C) a proxy support service organization;
(D) another person duly authorized by the proxy to receive appointments as agent for the proxy; or
(E) the nonprofit corporation.
(ii) An appointment transmitted under Subsection (2)(b)(i) shall set forth or be transmitted with written evidence from which it can be determined that the member transmitted or authorized the transmission of the appointment.
(3) (a) An appointment of a proxy is effective against the nonprofit corporation when received by the nonprofit corporation, including receipt by the nonprofit corporation of an appointment transmitted pursuant to Subsection (2)(b).
(b) An appointment is valid for 11 months unless a different period is expressly provided in the appointment form.
(4) Any complete copy, including an electronically transmitted facsimile, of an appointment of a proxy may be substituted for or used in lieu of the original appointment for any purpose for which the original appointment could be used.
(5) An appointment of a proxy is revocable by the member.
(6) An appointment of a proxy is revoked by the person appointing the proxy:
(a) attending any meeting and voting in person; or
(b) signing and delivering to the secretary or other officer or agent authorized to tabulate proxy votes:
(i) a writing stating that the appointment of the proxy is revoked; or
(ii) a subsequent appointment form.
(7) The death or incapacity of the member appointing a proxy does not affect the right of the nonprofit corporation to accept the proxy's authority unless notice of the death or incapacity is received by the secretary or other officer or agent authorized to tabulate votes before the proxy exercises the proxy's authority under the appointment.
(8) Subject to Section 16-6a-713 and to any express limitation on the proxy's authority appearing on the appointment form, a nonprofit corporation is entitled to accept the proxy's vote or other action as that of the member making the appointment.