# Villas of Cave Creek terminates SVO management agreement



## VacationPro (Sep 14, 2011)

Here's the email I received:

As you may be aware, the Villas of Cave Creek Owners Association (the “Association”) recently conducted a special meeting of the Association members to vote on whether to terminate the existing management agreement with an affiliate of Starwood Vacation Ownership (“SVO”). As your Association’s Board of Directors, we want to take this opportunity to announce the outcome of the vote.

A majority of the votes cast were in favor of termination. The termination is effective at the end of the current term of the existing management agreement, which is December 31, 2011. SVO’s affiliate will continue to manage the Villas of Cave Creek through December 31, 2011.

The Board is working on selecting a new management company. The process of selecting a management company and negotiating a new management agreement could take several months. We will update you as the process unfolds.

You may be wondering how this change will affect your ability to make your ownership reservations into Villas of Cave Creek. SVO’s Owner Services will continue to provide all home resort reservation services to you for all calls received through December 31, 2011.

You will also continue to have access to external exchange. The change in management companies will not terminate the Association’s affiliations with II® or RCI®. You will continue to enjoy the benefits of exchanging your ownership through those organizations, with the exception of certain discounts and other benefits that were a result of a relationship between the Starwood Vacation NetworkSM program (“SVN”) and II.

You also may wonder how this change will affect your relationship with SVN. As a result of this change, the Association will no longer be affiliated with the SVN program and SVN members may no longer trade their Villas of Cave Creek vacation ownership week for another SVN resort stay after December 31, 2011. However, weeks at many SVN resorts are available for exchange through II and RCI.

If you own at SVN resorts other than Villas of Cave Creek and have questions about how this may affect your membership status, please call SVO at 800.847.8262 or direct at 407.903.4640. SVO will send Owners a separate communication providing additional information relative to this change.

If you have other questions about the transition, please contact any of your Board Members: Daniel Shaffer at daniel.shaffer@gmail.com, Betty Campbell Madden at Bcmlrm3@aol.com, Bryan Dodd at sandbdodd@hotmail.com, or Walter Horning at walterspokane@comcast.net.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

The Board of Directors
Villas of Cave Creek Owners Association


----------



## scootr5 (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow - has that ever happened before?


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 14, 2011)

Do you know the underlying reason why Villas of Cave Creek Owners Association voted to get out of SVO?  

Sounds like VCC Owners Association voted to get out as opposed to SVO wanting VCC out.


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 14, 2011)

Interesting.  I considered staying at VCC this past May instead of WKV, but because our flight got in so late, we opted for WKV (because it was closer to PHX).  Otherwise, we would have stayed at VCC because I think I'd really like it.  

I, too, wonder what the impetus was behind booting SVO.  My first guess is that pushed their weight around one time too many.  One thing that I've learned from having an ear on politics is that the Arizonians do not like to be told what to do.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 14, 2011)

I am guessing that since they pulled VCC into the SVN that Starwood really wanted to call all the shots - but that's just my guess.

Didn't owners have to pay to join?  If so, this may irritate some people!


----------



## VacationPro (Sep 14, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Didn't owners have to pay to join?  If so, this may irritate some people!



I believe that Starwood waived the enrollment fee.

I purchased the week (for a nominal sum) and have enjoyed some fantastic trades thanks to the Starwood preference in II, so I am not happy about this.  :annoyed: I'm glad I still have my SDO.


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 14, 2011)

There was one on ebay for $1.00 a few weeks back.  I'm not sure if it sold.   If it's a premiere II property (that little gold symbol), hopefully you'll still be able to pull good exchanges.


----------



## siesta (Sep 14, 2011)

Interesting. Now i wonder if they wil consider more seriously the offer to SDO resale owners entry into SVN since this phx resorts departure.


----------



## yumdrey (Sep 14, 2011)

It happened to Four Seasons Aviara (hotel side) and Hilton already. SO why not Starwood?
That's why ownerships at affiliated resorts always have some risk and being sold cheaper than developer built & managed.


----------



## short (Sep 14, 2011)

A few months ago I recieved a proxy that the board wanted to terminate the contract with SVO so they could renegotiate terms.  Otherwise they were locked into certain provisions that kept escalating.  They would then try to renegotiate a new contract with SVO.

This looks like it may not happen.  People only tell you what they want you to hear. 

While I have had some very nice trades into Starwood properties with the priority, the new deposit system through starwood started a year or so ago sucks.  The Gold week had plenty of trading power but it expired 2 years from 6/30(half way through the year) and could not be extended in II so it cut off over a year and 1/2 of potential trade time for me.  I am usually behind trading weeks rather than trading ahead.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 14, 2011)

yumdrey said:


> It happened to Four Seasons Aviara (hotel side) and Hilton already. SO why not Starwood?
> That's why ownerships at affiliated resorts always have some risk and being sold cheaper than developer built & managed.



Which Starwood resorts are "affiliated" resorts as opposed to Starwood built/managed?


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow -- this is very cool!!  On a purely selfish basis, I would love to see a couple of my resorts disaffiliate (the ones I never trade -- WSJ and HRA).  I see no real benefit to being affiliated with Starwood, except for the shared facilities (pool, bar, room service, etc.) at WSJ.  Think of the $$$$$$$$ we'd save.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this ... but I can't help the way I feel.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 14, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> Wow -- this is very cool!!  On a purely selfish basis, I would love to see a couple of my resorts disaffiliate (the ones I never trade -- WSJ and HRA).  I see no real benefit to being affiliated with Starwood, except for the shared facilities (pool, bar, room service, etc.) at WSJ.  Think of the $$$$$$$$ we'd save.
> 
> I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this ... but I can't help the way I feel.



How much do you really think you would save? Management, reservations, housekeeping etc all need to happen at the resort. Do you think another management company would be significantly less expensive than SVN?


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 14, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> Do you think another management company would be significantly less expensive than SVN?



Yes.  I own HGVC and Hyatt  -- they manage to pull off equivalent (often better) resorts with significantly less funds.  Starwood has WAY too much inefficient overhead (e.g., phone reservations, II process that is so complicated it can't be automated).  Not only do we pay for that bloated overhead, we have the privilege of paying an additional 10% management fee on top of it.  

Listen -- I love my resorts -- Starwood has the experience down.  But, I don't think they have any interest whatsoever in running our resorts efficiently.  I would love to have HGVC, Hyatt ... or even VRI take over several of my resorts.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 14, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> Yes.  I own HGVC and Hyatt  -- they manage to pull off equivalent (often better) resorts with significantly less funds.  Starwood has WAY too much inefficient overhead (e.g., phone reservations, II process that is so complicated it can't be automated).  Not only do we pay for that bloated overhead, we have the privilege of paying an additional 10% management fee on top of it.
> 
> Listen -- I love my resorts -- Starwood has the experience down.  But, I don't think they have any interest whatsoever in running our resorts efficiently.  I would love to have HGVC, Hyatt ... or even VRI take over several of my resorts.



Does Hyatt charge a 10% management fee similar to SVN?

As for II, we pay for those trades, and I suspect SVN gets some of the II trade fee. Not sure this directly impacts our MF.


----------



## jarta (Sep 14, 2011)

The owners of the 25 2-Br units at VCC have spoken.  No more SVO.

But, will the owners at VCC be better off with another branded affiliation?  Or, by going it alone?  Can a 25-unit timeshare resort find another branded affiliation?  Can a 25-unit timeshare resort make it without a branded affiliation?

Who will be better off?  Who will not?  Who will not even notice any difference?  Starwood, the owners at other SVO resorts or the owners at VCC?

jerseygirl, tough talk!  But, be careful what you wish for.   ...   eom


----------



## l2trade (Sep 14, 2011)

I heard rumblings.  I could have predicted this.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 14, 2011)

No surprise here really.  I wouldn't put much weight on this one.  It is probably a good outcome for both parties.


----------



## grgs (Sep 14, 2011)

l2trade said:


> I heard rumblings.  I could have predicted this.



What were the rumblings about?  Just curious.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 14, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> Interesting.  I considered staying at VCC this past May instead of WKV, but because our flight got in so late, we opted for WKV (because it was closer to PHX).  Otherwise, we would have stayed at VCC because I think I'd really like it.
> 
> I, too, wonder what the impetus was behind booting SVO.  My first guess is that pushed their weight around one time too many.  One thing that I've learned from having an ear on politics is that the Arizonians do not like to be told what to do.



Good for them - he owners should call the shots & be in control. Many of the ills of timeshare would be well on the way to being fixed if more Boards/Associations removed the developer based management after the majority of units are sold.  Not to say a developer can't be a good manager but it needs to be by the active choice of the owners not because they have figured out ways to hang on and use the Associations as profit centers.  That goes on far too often with big names as well as smaller developers.  It should always be an owners choice and this is good news.

As an aside usually if a Club or exchange company has affiliated with a resort then the simple fact that the management changes does NOT terminate that relationship. That can and should continue no matter who manages the resort itself as any club/exchange is merely an option for owners to use.  Tying it to management is anther way Developers try to hang on far too long to control.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 15, 2011)

grgs said:


> What were the rumblings about?  Just curious.



Grgs, I sent you a PM.  Like I said earlier, I see this as a positive outcome for both VCC board and Starwood, as well as VCC & SDO owners.  That is all I am going to say about it on this thread.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 15, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> Does Hyatt charge a 10% management fee similar to SVN?
> 
> As for II, we pay for those trades, and I suspect SVN gets some of the II trade fee. Not sure this directly impacts our MF.



I'm sure Hyatt does -- I don't mind paying 10% for sound management.  My objections are related to bloated costs, and the additional 10% we pay with no end in sight (call me crazy, but I think 10+ years is enough time to develop an online reservation system that reduces costs through technology).

With regard to II, my complaints are not about the fees.  My complaints are related to the number of people it must take to run the convoluted system they've set up.  Again, bloated costs, to what end?


----------



## l2trade (Sep 15, 2011)

l2trade said:


> Grgs, I sent you a PM.  Like I said earlier, I see this as a positive outcome for both VCC board and Starwood, as well as VCC & SDO owners.  That is all I am going to say about it on this thread.



I'm sorry.  I was tired when I wrote this.  There are no big secrets or rumors here.  No need to PM me.  To be more clear, I heard about some of the VCC issues earlier this year.  I don't want to get into specifics on that because it really doesn't matter at this point.  What is done is done, and in hindsight, I think I might have seen it coming.  That is all.  There are two sides here, as there always is.  My OPINION is I feel this split is a good thing overall.  I apologize if my mixing that opinion with fact sounded like I was hinting at new rumors.  I am not.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 15, 2011)

IMHO, I feel that starwood managing the small VCC resort and getting it in line with the sheraton brand was an unnecessary distraction from their responsibilities at SDO.  I also applaud the VCC board.  I think it is good for owners whenever an hoa board reminds a management company who they work for.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 15, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> I'm sure Hyatt does -- I don't mind paying 10% for sound management.  My objections are related to bloated costs, and the additional 10% we pay with no end in sight (call me crazy, but I think 10+ years is enough time to develop an online reservation system that reduces costs through technology).
> 
> With regard to II, my complaints are not about the fees.  My complaints are related to the number of people it must take to run the convoluted system they've set up.  Again, bloated costs, to what end?



A cost plus arrangement is not entirely out of line. The contractor I recently hired has the same for overhead and then again for profit (10 + 10). Yes, it's annoying, and doesn't necessarily show true profit potential for a job. In this case, I know we're not pleased with SVN's ability to hire the most expensive contractor, for instance, for repairs and improvements and then add an extra 10% (there were a number of posts about out of line costs for the SVR updates on TUG, as I'm sure you recall). I don't have a problem specifically with the 10%, but I do have issues with the lack of transparency on the bidding process for major projects which would otherwise show owners that SVN is acting in our best interests (which many of us doubt). 

And, as you likely recall from my many posts on the topic, I'm right with you re the online reservation system. It is simply irresponsible and bad management to not have a modern reservation system with online instant availability searching and reserving options. It is, in my opinion, unforgivable at this stage. As we've suggested in the past, there must be a business reason for them not to implement such a change...and some of us suspect the fees they earn on top of the call center as one of those, and the ability for them to hide true availability (though that can be done with an online system as well). Regardless, it is simply absurd that we don't have one. Perhaps we should start a petition...

As for the II costs, I see that as separate from SVN. II has an online reservation system, and while it may be inconsistent at times, it does work. I agree that there are likely areas they can reduce overhead, especially considering the rapid rise of trade fees over the last five years, but it's still a relatively minor cost for a good service.


----------



## scootr5 (Sep 15, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> And, as you likely recall from my many posts on the topic, I'm right with you re the online reservation system. It is simply irresponsible and bad management to not have a modern reservation system with online instant availability searching and reserving options. It is, in my opinion, unforgivable at this stage.



Funny, I just said almost exactly the same thing when answering the 2nd Annual Owner Survey...


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 15, 2011)

I think VCC is in a unique position because it is a very small resort, and Starwood acquired it.  It would be very difficult to pull this off at, say, WKORV, because of the sheer number of owners and because Starwood controls the HOA. 

However, I do appreciate the message that the HOA is sending, that the resort is supposed to be run by the owners now, not the developer, and if push comes to shove, the HOA can terminate the management contract.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 15, 2011)

LisaRex said:


> I think VCC is in a unique position because it is a very small resort, and Starwood acquired it.  It would be very difficult to pull this off at, say, WKORV, because of the sheer number of owners and because Starwood controls the HOA.
> 
> However, I do appreciate the message that the HOA is sending, that the resort is supposed to be run by the owners now, not the developer, and if push comes to shove, the HOA can terminate the management contract.



Agree.  Furthermore, it would be very difficult for the HOA to pull this off at any other resort because many owners would blame the board.  Can you imagine if this happened at, let's just pretend, SDO?  While I, as a non-SVN SDO owner may be ok with it, those who paid to retro into SVN would be screaming MAD, right?  I think some 5* tuggers would suddenly cease to be so, eh?  That is why I think things would have to much, much worse with SVO before something like this could happen elsewhere.  Again, all just my opinion.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 15, 2011)

l2trade said:


> Agree.  Furthermore, it would be very difficult for the HOA to pull this off at any other resort because many owners would blame the board.  Can you imagine if this happened at, let's just pretend, SDO?  While I, as a non-SVN SDO owner may be ok with it, those who paid to retro into SVN would be screaming MAD, right?  I think some 5* tuggers would suddenly cease to be so, eh?  That is why I think things would have to much, much worse with SVO before something like this could happen elsewhere.  Again, all just my opinion.



No, a management change shouldn't impact the rights/status of existing members as it isn't a requirement of the membership.  It would just become another group the new management would have to deal with.  Now would Starwood honor it as they should? Would owners understand they aren't losing what they bought?  Different story. That can be tough to get across.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 15, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> No, a management change shouldn't impact the rights/status of existing members as it isn't a requirement of the membership.  It would just become another group the new management would have to deal with.  Now would Starwood honor it as they should? Would owners understand they aren't losing what they bought?  Different story. That can be tough to get across.



Hi John - Elite Status is a Starwood perk for owners who own multiple Starwood timeshares.  If a resort was no longer in the Starwood system, the ownership would no longer count towards the owner's Elite status with Starwood.  

Elite status is not guaranteed by your deed - it is a club thing.  Since it's not deeded, Starwood can and does make changes in the requirements for Elite Status and the benefits.  They've made lots of changes over time.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 15, 2011)

Ken555 said:


> As for the II costs, I see that as separate from SVN. II has an online reservation system, and while it may be inconsistent at times, it does work. I agree that there are likely areas they can reduce overhead, especially considering the rapid rise of trade fees over the last five years, but it's still a relatively minor cost for a good service.



Ken -- I'm sorry, I'm not being clear on what I object to with regard to II costs.  I have no issue paying II for the service it renders (via membership fees for my non-SVN account, their portion (if any) of my SVN fees for my corporate account, and any exchange fees).  I object to the funds being spent on human capital to run the most convoluted II interface in the industry!  Our units should be reflected as normal units in II.  We should be able to deposit online like every other player.  We should be able to choose the year online.  Instead, there are phone reps to handle the requests, behind-the-scenes reps to balance the books, reconciliation/escalation reps to clean up all the screw-ups, more phone reps for when everyone calls back to make sure the right week was depsoited, managers to handle the complaints, etc.!!  

If the II process worked like it was initially intended (and like it like it works for the rest of the industry*), significantly fewer employees would be needed.  I believe we pay for those employees under the cost line of "reservation services" .... and we presumably pay an extra 10% for the pleasure of being screwed by an inefficient process!!  Keeping with my "Animal House" quote theme this week:  Thank you Starwood, may I have another?  

* I think Marriott borrowed a page from Starwood's book and has also figured out how to squeeze more value from owners by requiring DC members to go through the club to deposit units ... but I could be wrong.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 15, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Hi John - Elite Status is a Starwood perk for owners who own multiple Starwood timeshares.  If a resort was no longer in the Starwood system, the ownership would no longer count towards the owner's Elite status with Starwood.
> 
> Elite status is not guaranteed by your deed - it is a club thing.  Since it's not deeded, Starwood can and does make changes in the requirements for Elite Status and the benefits.  They've made lots of changes over time.



All systems aren't alike but...
There are examples when Wyndham and Hilton have dis-associated with affiliate resorts and have continued to allow enrolled members from those resorts to stay in their systems and have allowed members from other resorts to trade back into the un-affilliated resort to the extent that members have traded out.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 16, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> No, a management change shouldn't impact the rights/status of existing members as it isn't a requirement of the membership.  It would just become another group the new management would have to deal with.  Now would Starwood honor it as they should? Would owners understand they aren't losing what they bought?  Different story. That can be tough to get across.



No, look what happened to VCC owners as stated in the original post: "... You also may wonder how this change will affect your relationship with SVN. As a result of this change, the Association will no longer be affiliated with the SVN program and SVN members may no longer trade their Villas of Cave Creek vacation ownership week for another SVN resort stay after December 31, 2011. However, weeks at many SVN resorts are available for exchange through II and RCI..."

This is what I would expect.  If an HOA board fires Starwood, the SVN membership / SVO affiliation goes away.  5* Elite is based on one's ownership and membership in SVN.  If part of an ownership portfolio becomes unaffiliated with SVO, why wouldn't that person's status drop... same as if they sold an SVO week?


----------



## l2trade (Sep 16, 2011)

tschwa2 said:


> All systems aren't alike but...
> There are examples when Wyndham and Hilton have dis-associated with affiliate resorts and have continued to allow enrolled members from those resorts to stay in their systems and have allowed members from other resorts to trade back into the un-affilliated resort to the extent that members have traded out.



IMHO, that is wishful thinking.  There are plenty of owner-friendly examples I can't take from other timeshare systems that just simply do not apply to Starwood.  Why would Starwood do that?  To what benefit for Starwood to keep unaffiliated ownerships in SVN when the bar is so high to retro a resale?


----------



## grgs (Sep 16, 2011)

l2trade said:


> Why would Starwood do that?  To what benefit for Starwood to keep unaffiliated ownerships in SVN when the bar is so high to retro a resale?



The one situation where I could see this happening would be if Starwood had sold VCC weeks at full retail prices.  Given that VCC has only been in SVN a short time and is a small complex, I'm assuming this never happened. 

Glorian


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 16, 2011)

Or if VCC had great demand with SVN members ...


----------



## barndweller (Sep 16, 2011)

Personally, I am thrilled that we owners at VCC have kicked the crappy, money grubbing Starwood bums out! I didn't buy at VCC to trade for Starwood resorts. I didn't buy at VCC to have my week controlled by the Sheraton/Westin Corporation. I didn't expect my mf to rise by over 20% per year either. As a non SVN owner at VCC I am very happy to say so long to Starwood and hire a management company that works for me and not their shareholders on wall street.


----------



## grgs (Sep 16, 2011)

Do you feel the same way about SDO?  Would you like SDO to not be managed by Starwood?  

Not trying to be argumentative--I'm just curious. 

Glorian


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 16, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Hi John - Elite Status is a Starwood perk for owners who own multiple Starwood timeshares.  If a resort was no longer in the Starwood system, the ownership would no longer count towards the owner's Elite status with Starwood.
> 
> Elite status is not guaranteed by your deed - it is a club thing.  Since it's not deeded, Starwood can and does make changes in the requirements for Elite Status and the benefits.  They've made lots of changes over time.



Then unfortunately they can terminate it when the affiliation ends and apparently will. That doesn't have to happen -doing so is just another hang on to control at all costs (to owners) move. A great reason NOT to but into such a system or at least keep any money paid to a bare minimum in case tnis type of change occurs (and more and more you are likely to see it as owners become fed up with bloated developer based management - Marriott is a prime candidate to see it along with others.  The only sure thing is change at virtually every timeshare - often not in the owners favor UNLESS they, and not a management / brand, holds control.  History proves it over & over.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 16, 2011)

l2trade said:


> No, look what happened to VCC owners as stated in the original post: "... You also may wonder how this change will affect your relationship with SVN. As a result of this change, the Association will no longer be affiliated with the SVN program and SVN members may no longer trade their Villas of Cave Creek vacation ownership week for another SVN resort stay after December 31, 2011. However, weeks at many SVN resorts are available for exchange through II and RCI..."
> 
> This is what I would expect.  If an HOA board fires Starwood, the SVN membership / SVO affiliation goes away.  5* Elite is based on one's ownership and membership in SVN.  If part of an ownership portfolio becomes unaffiliated with SVO, why wouldn't that person's status drop... same as if they sold an SVO week?



Again this is strictly a move to maintain undeserved control by management vs owners.  They don't HAVE to drop it, they do because it becomes a threat to help them keep control. Not good as I say above.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 16, 2011)

tschwa2 said:


> All systems aren't alike but...
> There are examples when Wyndham and Hilton have dis-associated with affiliate resorts and have continued to allow enrolled members from those resorts to stay in their systems and have allowed members from other resorts to trade back into the un-affilliated resort to the extent that members have traded out.



Exactly my point. Even DRI/ Sunterra before them, while they wanted management control were very realistic and maintained affiliation after a management change . That is how they set it up & we've since developed a great relationship with them and owners appreciate it. Much better way to go for all involved.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 16, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> Again this is strictly a move to maintain undeserved control by management vs owners.  They don't HAVE to drop it, they do because it becomes a threat to help them keep control. Not good as I say above.



Yes, I can agree with you on that.  IMHO, it is a very powerful threat to the board.  It works well for them.

Let's take SDO as an example.  I use SDO as an example because of Glorian's question and also because 'true platinum' SDO owners get a great StarOption/MF ratio.  I assume there are more than a few Tuggers who paid good money to retro in some of these SDO units...  (raise your hands  )

In regards to Glorian's question: As a non-SVN SDO owner, I would prefer Starwood become more competitive overall.  If they don't, I wouldn't mind a change in management.  HOWEVER, if I were an SDO board member, I would be extremely reluctant to seriously consider firing Starwood.  I would hate to face the wrath from unhappy SVN members, especially well known and vocal ones that I think we would find screaming mad about it here on TUG.  I bet Glorian would be very upset at me if I did anything at all to jeopardize her membership, right?  For that reason alone, I think a board driven change in management companies is a far off, unlikely and only a distant, remote possibility.  And, with genuine empathy towards all my richer than me, higher-class, 5* elite fellow SDO owners, I fully support SDO remaining a Starwood affiliate, in spite of my selfish, jealous, anti-SVN bias.


----------



## grgs (Sep 17, 2011)

l2trade said:


> I bet Glorian would be very upset at me if I did anything at all to jeopardize her membership, right?  For that reason alone, I think a board driven change in management companies is a far off, unlikely and only a distant, remote possibility.  And, with genuine empathy towards all my richer than me, higher-class, 5* elite fellow SDO owners, I fully support SDO remaining a Starwood affiliate, in spite of my selfish, jealous, anti-SVN bias.



I do have one SDO week in SVN, so yes, I do have an interest in Starwood remaining as manager.  However, I am also have an interest in having reasonable mf.  So far, SDO fees have remained relatively low with mainly modest increases and no special assessments.  I was curious if barndweller is ok with Starwood's management at SDO.  With a 20% increase in mf at VCC (what are the mf there?), it would certainly be understandable that Starwood management would no longer be wanted.


----------



## barndweller (Sep 17, 2011)

I no longer own at SDO. I gave it away this year to a friend. The fees at VCC were higher than SDO. At over $950 annually I don't think the fees at either resort are reasonable. I bought resale so was never a member of the network. And never had any desire to be in the network. Yet Starwood found a way to control the use of my week at II. I may return to using II if I don't have to deal with Starwood anymore.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 17, 2011)

I didn't see what management company VCC is planning to use.  I think Trading Places or VRI would be ideal for a larger, high quality resort.  Both have resort quality in mind, and both offer internal exchange systems that are excellent.


----------



## grgs (Sep 17, 2011)

barndweller said:


> I no longer own at SDO. I gave it away this year to a friend. The fees at VCC were higher than SDO. At over $950 annually I don't think the fees at either resort are reasonable. I bought resale so was never a member of the network. And never had any desire to be in the network. Yet Starwood found a way to control the use of my week at II. I may return to using II if I don't have to deal with Starwood anymore.



Thanks for the reply.  I think the mf at SDO are a bit high (but not outrageous) for the amenities available there.  For me, though, this is offset by the Starwood to Starwood preference in Interval (leaving aside the one week I have which is in SVN).  My SDO units also pull satisfactory non-Starwood trades.  I have not, to date, found that Starwood controlling the week going into Interval has been an issue.  I understand from a philosophical perspective this is not fair, but from a practical perspective I haven't seen that it matters.  

So with the Starwood to Starwood preference in Interval, the higher SDO mf are ok with me.  If that ever goes away, then I suppose I would have to reconsider.  

Glorian


----------



## barndweller (Sep 17, 2011)

> I have not, to date, found that Starwood controlling the week going into Interval has been an issue. I understand from a philosophical perspective this is not fair, but from a practical perspective I haven't seen that it matters


. 

I always have gotten good trades at II using both my VCC & SDO weeks even after the new Starwood control grab took place. However, to me it was a matter of principle that drove my dissatisfaction with Starwood. Since I have never been a member of their special club and received no benefit from it, I feel it was a direct assault on my rights as an owner to dictate how I can reserve, deposit or exchange my weeks. After all, Starwood is my employee, hired to (as has been stated here by others) clean the toilets and man the front desk. In my opinion Starwood has no right to dictate the manner in which I use my reserved time. The system they have put in place at II was obviously a blatant attempt to take control of non-SVN member's weeks in the exchange system. I'm proud of our HOA for retaliating by firing them. I hope we hire TPI or VRI to manage our great little resort. I feel strongly that timesharing has not benefited from the entrance of big corporate name brands. They are driven strictly by profit with little concern for customer satisfaction. It will bite them in the butt eventually.


----------



## jarta (Sep 17, 2011)

barndweller,   ...   Why would Starwood want to add a 25 unit furnished apartment building/timeshare "resort" to it's stable of true timeshare resorts?  Who wanted whom?  Nobody held a gun to the heads of the VCC board when it voted to join the SVO network.

Someone who has now been rescued from the clutches of Starwood by the VCC board and your fellow owners should feel relieved, not angry.

Get over it!  Be happy!  The MF at VCC will be sure to drop - as will the trading power in II.  The Starwood preference will be gone.  And, now you will have what you apparently have wanted in the timeshare world - a return to obscurity.   ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Sep 18, 2011)

barndweller,   ...   "I didn't expect my mf to rise by over *20% per year *either. As a non SVN owner at VCC I am very happy to say so long to Starwood and hire a management company that works for me and not their shareholders on wall street."  and

" At *over $950 annually *I don't think the fees at either resort are reasonable. *I bought resale so was never a member of the network*."

From other TUG posts about VCC MF:

"Villas of Cave Creek - *2009* 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2BR annual

MF.................*851.57*
ARDA............... 5.00
Total..............856.57

2BR EOY

MF................445.79
ARDA.............. 0.00
Total.............445.79

This is an 8.4% increase for annual ownerships over 2008 and an 8.0% increase for EOYs"

http://69.16.236.4/~tugbbsc/forums/showthread.php?t=86264&page=2&highlight=Villas+Cave+Creek

2008 was the year before VCC joined the SVO.  The 2009 MF was announced before the SVO affilation was announced.

For 2011

"Fees for Villas of Cave Creek 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VCC is now a full member of SVO, so it's appropriate to include their fees here, don't you think?

All units are 2BR, no lockoffs. Here's the detail from my most recent bill:

Maintenance Fee(s) $ *921.90 *
Tax - If Applicable $ 0.00 
Membership Fee - If Applicable $ 119.00 
Current Year Charges $ 1,040.90"

http://69.16.236.4/~tugbbsc/forums/showthread.php?t=132266&page=4

2008 - $785.58

2011 - $921.90

Increase since joining SVO (spread over 3 years) - 17.35%, or, at best and assuming Starwood had influence over the 2009 MF, 5.78% per year.  Certainly an increase, but overstated as 20% per year for axe-grinding purposes?

A TUG comment from a prior owner when Starwood let VCC join SVO:

"I used to own a week at Villas of Cave Creek. The two pools in the picture are the only ones on site...and they are both TINY. In fact, even if you put them together you wouldn't have a decent pool. The courtyard is pretty and the foliage has grown a lot since that picture was taken, but the pools are terrible.

To be fair, the Villas of Cave Creek have some charm in terms of architecture and decor. But there are also serious design flaws. The units have tiny kitchens and bathrooms...and the construction quality is also very cheap. 

I really don't think this resort deserves a "5 star" or "premier" rating. It's a big step down from the Sheraton Desert Oasis...and it's an enormous step down from the Westin Kierland. I'm surprised that Starwood is going to accept VCC into SVN.

Steve"

http://69.16.236.4/~tugbbsc/forums/showthread.php?t=94819&highlight=Villas+Cave+Creek  eom


----------



## Bogey1 (Nov 14, 2011)

Has anyone learned which management company Villas of Cave Creek will be joining? Or what the 2012 maint. fees will be?


----------



## VacationPro (Nov 18, 2011)

Bogey1 said:


> Has anyone learned which management company Villas of Cave Creek will be joining? Or what the 2012 maint. fees will be?



Still waiting for information...


----------



## witz (Nov 20, 2011)

When logging in to mystarcentral it shows me a projected MF for 2012 of $954. Should be interesting to see what the MFs will be. I am very doubtful of any significant savings...but one can hope. 

For the record, below are the historical MFs for the past three years:

2011:  $ 921.90
2010:  $ 996.18
2009:  $ 851.57

Considering I did not pay an SVN fee on my VCC week, I will certainly come out a behind when I add the II fee for next year.

Jeff


----------



## witz (Dec 6, 2011)

*Villas of Cave Creek BoD selects Trading Places(?)*

Looks like Trading Places is the new management firm for the Villas of Cave Creek. They are looking for a new Resort General Manager....

http://www.linkedin.com/jobs/jobs-Resort-General-Manager-2241220


----------



## Quiet Pine (Dec 7, 2011)

*Villas of Cave Creek Management Company [moved from another thread]*

The HOA voted Starwood out as management company--any word on who will manage going forward? And what the effect will be on II rating, fees, assessments and so on?


----------



## witz (Dec 9, 2011)

Quiet Pine said:


> The HOA voted Starwood out as management company--any word on who will manage going forward? And what the effect will be on II rating, fees, assessments and so on?



From what I understand Trading Places International is the new management company and the MF's should drop to about $850. I expect [hope] to see an announcement [and bill] from the Board of Directors shortly.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 10, 2011)

witz said:


> From what I understand Trading Places International is the new management company and the MF's should drop to about $850. I expect [hope] to see an announcement [and bill] from the Board of Directors shortly.



TPI was acquired by Interval Leisure Group  (I.I.'s parent) in November, 2010.
Although TPI is run as a discrete business, the primary motivation was to expand ILG's  foray into resort management. 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds as the industry continues to consolidate.


----------



## AZVILLA (Dec 10, 2011)

*SVO Mgmt*

I will not disagree with the above comments but I believe there are many reasons individuals acquire timeshares.  If you simply want the use of a timeshare then maybe you should not own in the SVO Network.  I have been reading the many posts over the past months since joining TUG.  I have read many comments regarding SVO management and the weaknesses including reservation system.

Having said all that since the mid-2000s I have owned SVO Units and have stayed at SVO network properties.  Barring some in villa Internet strength issues the Villas are well maintained.  I, personally, have never complained about property staff.  Should there be issues the staff or GMs have went out of their way to make up for any deficiency.  I have heard from others in NON-SVO timeshare properties where they don't have similar property experience.  

I pay the fees for upkeep and staff which I have not experienced as poor.  I also pay the fee for the SVO property network.

Further I have stayed at MANY hotels and motels and CONSISTENTLY the Starwood chain meets or exceeds my expectations.  I cannot say the same for Hyatt or Marriott.  The other reason I acquired SVO Network properties was the ability to convert to Starpoints and stay at Starwood chain.

So, as someone mentioned be careful wishing for another management company.  Also as they say about all things if you don't like the fees don't buy it.  So if you don't like the fees don't buy the unit or sell the unit.  I did not join SVO to be in the cheapest system.


----------



## VacationPro (Dec 10, 2011)

witz said:


> From what I understand Trading Places International is the new management company and the MF's should drop to about $850. I expect [hope] to see an announcement [and bill] from the Board of Directors shortly.



Well, count me completely unimpressed.  A drop of $70 for a week's maintenance fee is not nearly enough for what we give up for not being a part of Starwood any longer.  I would gladly pay the extra $10 a night to remain part of Starwood.


----------



## witz (Dec 10, 2011)

VacationPro said:


> Well, count me completely unimpressed.  A drop of $70 for a week's maintenance fee is not nearly enough for what we give up for not being a part of Starwood any longer.  I would gladly pay the extra $10 a night to remain part of Starwood.



Agreed! Especially since I lost my SVN Elite Status as a result.


----------



## witz (Dec 10, 2011)

AZVILLA said:


> Further I have stayed at MANY hotels and motels and CONSISTENTLY the Starwood chain meets or exceeds my expectations.  I cannot say the same for Hyatt or Marriott.



As much of a fan of Starwood as I am, I could not disagree more! Sheratons are all over the place. The one in Providence, RI and Norfolk, VA are absolutely terrible and the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass is better than the Phoenician. Aside from the Sheraton brand, Starwood has it right.


----------



## Desert Pilgrim (Dec 28, 2011)

*New TPI Mgt. and Lower Maint. Fee at Villas of Cave Creek*

Beginning January 1, 2012, the Villas of Cave Creek will be managed by Trading Places International.  

The 2012 maintenance fee, which covers everything, will be $851, down from $921.90 in 2011 and $145 less than 2010's maintenance fee of $996.  

Don't worry about losing any clout with Interval International.  It will probably go the other way.  In 2010, the Interval Group, owners of Interval International, acquired Trading Places, so TPI is now an independently-managed subsidiary of the Interval Group.

Villas of Cave Creek is a charming, boutique resort in a much more natural (and close to nature) environment than you will find at big megaresorts.  If you're expecting huge concrete pools with waterfalls and tons of artificial ambiance and snooty razzmataz, go somewhere else. 

There's a hiking trail for walking up Black Mountain right behind the resort.  A short walk in the other direction takes you to one of the prettiest public libraries in the world with an amazing view.  

Just a mile or two from the Villas is the  2,154-acre Spur Cross Conservation Area along Cave Creek, a beautiful preserve of rolling desert hills full of Indian petroglphs, old mines, wildlife, and natural vegetation.  This gem is part of the Maricopa County Regional Park System.  Check out Google Images to see what I mean.


----------



## gdyee (Dec 31, 2011)

*Invoice for 2012 Maintenance Fees*

Have the invoices for 2012 maintenance fees been mailed out yet?  I haven't seen mine in the mail.


----------



## Bogey1 (Jan 1, 2012)

*Cave Creek*

Finally got thru to Trading Places after 40 minutes on two separate holds. Customer Service said that they just were notified of the switch to TP a couple of days ago (!!). She could not help on fees at all. I was patched thru to accounting for another long wait and that person said they had nothing yet. She said they would be sent out "in the future".  

While I understand there has to be a transition, it doesn't appear there was much pre-planning involved. I'll echo a couple of others that the $70 savings may not be worth it.


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 2, 2012)

It may be that the MFs have only decreased by $70 this year because there are outstanding contracts that have not run their course yet.  There are many ways for a management company to make a profit that may not be readily visible to an owner.  

For example, let's take housekeeping as an example.  Management firms often subcontract out these services to another firm, instead of managing a large (and transient) housekeeping staff in-house.  Ditto for groundskeepers, IT techs, valets, on-site restaurants, etc. 

Some management companies have taken advantage of this by creating sub-companies that are in business solely to make an additional profit for the parent.

For instance, lets take a fictitious scenario and say that VCC advertised that they are soliciting bids for housekeeping services: 

Harry's Housekeeping, a locally owned and operated company, pays their housekeepers $10/hour.  HH submits a bid which gives HH a 5% profit.

Star Housekeeping Services, a sub-company of the current management firm, pays their housekeepers the same $10/hour, but submits a bid which gives SHS a 20% profit. 

Guess who is awarded the contract? 

So it's quite possible that VCC's MFs will decrease further as time goes by and these padded contracts are replaced with truly competitive contracts.


----------



## jarta (Jan 2, 2012)

It's easy to cut expenses temporarily. Defer everyday maintenance and/or cut back on funding the reserve fund.

Like you and your unsupported supposition of existing "padded" service contracts at VCC, I have no evidence that is what is now happening at VCC.   ...   eom


----------



## Desert Pilgrim (Jan 26, 2012)

Hello, fellow owners at Villas of Cave Creek!

I'd like to comment regarding the "only" $70.00 reduction in VCC's 2012 maintenance fee.  I'm on the board of directers of the Owners 
Association and am very familiar with the budget.

First, this year's reduction of $70.00 is on top of the $75.00 reduction we wrangled for 2011.  Remember that the 2010 maintenance fee was $996 and would have been even higher if we had approved the budget Starwood first brought to us.

Second, keep in mind that our annual fee includes contributions to our future repair and replacement reserves in addition to our annual operating and maintenance costs.  Many resorts bill replacement reserves as a separate item, which makes the maintenance fee look lower.  

Having well-funded replacement reserves protects owners from the unwelcome, "special assessments" that owners have been hit with at many other resorts.

The main reasons we reduced the 2012 maintenance fee by just $70.00 were uncertainty and prudence.  We knew that direct management fees would be lower under TPI, but we also are expecting additional cost savings.

In addition, we expect more revenue from the rental of delinquent weeks with Trading Places International, but we don't know how much more.  In my opinion, Starwood's reporting was unclear in that area, so we didn't have a good baseline to work from.

For 2012, we didn't want to be overly optimistic and set the maintenance fee too low, only to run a deficit and then have to increase the fee in 2013.  So we decided to be prudent.  If there are additional savings and/or revenues, these will be rebudgeted by the Board in ways that we believe will help preserve and increase the value of your investment in Villas of Cave Creek.

We are hopeful that our 2013 maintenance fee will be even lower, but only time and accounting will tell.  A lot depends on the faithfulness of owners in paying their maintenance fees.  Fewer delinquencies translates directly to lower maintenance fees for everyone.

So please hang in there and be patient as we complete this transition.  You should be receiving your 2012 billing and lots of information any day now (I'm writing this on January 26).

Best wishes to all for 2012!  Be healthy, be kind to one another,  and take time to "smell the roses"!


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 27, 2012)

Thanks for coming in and explaining the MFs.  

Have a great 2012!


----------



## jarta (Jan 27, 2012)

"Second, keep in mind that our annual fee includes contributions to our future repair and replacement reserves in addition to our annual operating and maintenance costs. Many resorts bill replacement reserves as a separate item, which makes the maintenance fee look lower."

The total bill is the total bill.  If it separates out annual maintenance and replacement reserves, it has no effect on the total amount paid.  If you are saying that many resorts issue 2 annual bills (1 for annual maintenance and 1 for replacement reserves) I think you are mistaken.

But, if the annual fee does not itemize annual maintenance separate from replacement reserves, when the replacement reserve contribution is cut and the annual maintenance remains the same, all the owner sees is a reduction in the total paid year-to-year.  Same thing when the replacement reserve stays the same and the annual maintenance goes down - the owner sees a net reduction.

I have no idea how your apparently unitemized (only totals have been posted here) 2012 assessment relates to the itemized 2011 assessment any more than others have any idea that Starwood padded expenses at VCC (an allegation you do not support or rebut).

It seems the marriage of VCC and Starwood just did not work.  I can think of many reasons why this might be true, but it seems VCC is happy being with TPI.  It seems like a charming little resort.  All the best to you and the other VCC HOA members in future years.   ...   eom


----------



## Desert Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2012)

Thanks for your comments.  By now, most VCC owners should have received their 2012 billing from TPI.  Mine came in the mail last Friday, January 27.

If you don't receive your billing by Wednesday, you might want to call TPI to make sure that they received your correct, current address from Starwood.  Their toll-free number is 866-932-5200.

Our 2012 budget, which is included in your mailing,  includes $131,772 for (future) Replacement Reserves.  That amounts to $101.36 of the $851 maintenance fee.  

You will also see that $185,199, or $142.46 per annual week, is budgeted for Uncollectible Accounts (anticipated unpaid maintenance fees).  We will be working aggressively with TPI to reduce delinquencies and get orphan weeks into the loving hands of new and responsible owners.  That will reduce everyone's future maintenance fees.

FYI, our new website, which will be expanded with additional content over the next few weeks, is //*www.villascavecreek.com*

Best wishes!


----------

