# PLEASE READ - Sheraton Desert Oasis Owners (POLL ADDED!)



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

The election is on-line this year:  You will receive an over-sized postcard with the Sheraton "S" Logo - they were mailed around Sept. 19.

The postcard has a unique url and password to use to sign-in and vote - you can vote twice for each week you own.  (Two positions are open.)

This is what the ballot looks like:  http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1363448&postcount=18

You must vote by Thurs., Oct. 18, 9:00 a.m. - the board meeting is that morning at 10 a.m.

Here is the number to call if you don't get a postcard: *1-888-596-2215*.

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

SDO Owners - The SDO board is planning major and costly renovations for the resort.  It is important to me, that *we as owners* have input in the decisions that are made regarding the renovations - *especially how WE are going to pay for them!*

*[Right now, the proposal is for a 30% increase in maintenance fees.]*

The most critical action you can take to have your voice heard is to vote in the current BOD election and elect candidates who are independent thinkers that will *represent OWNERS*.  (I have posted the official election Bio's below.)

*I am endorsing Charles Baron and Jody Lee and this is why:*

The current SDO board consists of four people ALL over 50 yrs old, ALL are out-of-state, ALL are high-income, ALL are childless or empty nesters.  The current SDO board DOES NOT properly represent the demographic profile of SDO owners.  

The current board is quick to approve anything proposed by Starwood with little regard to the impact on maintenance fee increases and with no effort to review viable alternatives.  To better represent our diverse owners/members, we need younger individuals on the board who understand the concerns of middle class families with children at home.  Also, a significant portion of our owners (I think over 50%) live in Arizona, hence we need at least one board member who lives nearby and can better represent the needs of local owners.

After reviewing the candidate profiles, Charles and Jody are by far the best candidates.  They are both *resale owners* who will bring some *new blood* and *independent thinking* to the board, before we embark on a costly renovations project.  In addition, *Charles lives in the area* and has *attended nearly every meeting over the last 3 years* as a concerned and involved owner.  

The other candidates:

John Cummings has already been on the board for 9 years and he endorses whatever Starwood recommends.  In public board meetings, he speaks out against any options, except the plans that Starwood puts forward.  When it comes time to vote on the renovations and how owners will pay for them, he will not be an independent thinker.  

Joseph Healy lives in Canada and is retired.  He does not represent the demographics of the ownership at SDO, and his Bio says nothing about how he wants to help the HOA.  Also, someone who is geographically so far removed from the resort, is less likely to be able to be an active participant on the board, and the board already has at least one other director that lives outside the country.

*More info. from the board President - *http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364395&postcount=97



> Candidate Profiles
> 
> *Charles Baron*
> Charles Baron has owned multiple weeks at Sheraton Desert Oasis since 2007. He also owns a Marriott timeshare. Charles has 17 years experience working at Intel Corporation in a variety of roles, including project management, consultant, technical lead, system analyst and application developer. He lives in Chandler, Arizona where he currently serves as Secretary/Treasurer of his neighborhood HOA. He earned a B.A. from USC in Los Angeles and a M.Ed. from ASU in Tempe. As a local resident, Charles attends most board meetings and visits the resort often, staying well informed on key challenges facing the resort and owners association. His purpose in running for the board is to keep steady focus on resolving the foreclosure delinquency crisis, maintaining high resort ratings and being disciplined with balancing the budget. Doing so, will improve ownership value, customer satisfaction and ensure fees stay reasonable for everyone. In his free time, Charles loves vacationing with his wife and two kids.
> ...



This post is my personal opinion, and has not been endorsed by TUG.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 22, 2012)

Denise, I have not received notice of BOD election.  Is it in snail mail?  

Thanks, SP


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

I haven't received it yet either, but I believe it has been mailed, and we should receive it any time.


----------



## pointsjunkie (Sep 22, 2012)

thanks for the info denise. will be looking for the snail mail to come in. i hope they don't have to assess us. hope there is enought money in the reserve.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 22, 2012)

I do want a balance in spending what is good for the resort and the interest of owners.  I do fall under the group of over 50 and sort of empty nester (grown up kid living at home).  Cost of refurbishment is not my main concern as long as it is put to good use.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

I am not opposed to renovations at all - I just want to be sure that a BOD that represents the owners is calling the shots.


----------



## jarta (Sep 22, 2012)

> The current board is quick to approve anything proposed by Starwood with little regard to the impact on maintenance fee increases and with no effort to review viable alternatives.



I must admit I do not understand what the OP is talking about in making the above statement.  

If the current SDO board has acted so horribly, how is it that SDO has the lowest MFs per StarOption in the SVO system and SDO is the subject of "buy" recommendations on TUG on an almost daily basis (including lots of recommendations by the OP)?   Salty


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 22, 2012)

I don't think anyone is ever opposed to a renovation.  Ensuring the money is well spent is the issue.  I still think they WAY overspent at SVR.  IIRC, the SA for a 2-BR was in the neighborhood of $80000+ (over $1500 per week - plus funds already in reserve ).  I've refurbished small condos for a whole lot less than that .... So I'm skeptical that anyone was really looking out for the owners on that one.  When the manager is paid a percentage on top of funds spent, they're obviously not interested in economizing.  That's where a good HOA is critical.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

jarta said:


> I must admit I do not understand what the OP is talking about in making the above statement.



I'd be happy to give you an example:  Even though there are many weighty issues before the board right now, one board member's greatest concern is getting the rest of the board members to give him a special dispensation to rent a full-size car, at the SDO owner's expense, when he attends board meetings.  On all other issues, he adamantly supports Starwood's recommendations, and refuses to consider any independent suggestions from the board. 

That's not my idea of an independent thinker, and that's not the guy I want voting on a special assessment.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 22, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I'd be happy to give you an example:  Even though there are many weighty issues before the board right now, one board member's greatest concern is getting the rest of the board members to give him a special dispensation to rent a full-size car, at the SDO owner's expense, when he attends board meetings.  On all other issues, he adamantly supports Starwood's recommendations, and refuses to consider any independent suggestions from the board.
> 
> That's not my idea of an independent thinker, and that's not the guy I want voting on a special assessment.



Denise, where is this info? Now that I'm a SDO owner, I'd like to read the minutes from the last few meetings etc. Is this absurd statement from a board member in the minutes?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Denise, where is this info? Now that I'm a SDO owner, I'd like to read the minutes from the last few meetings etc. Is this absurd statement from a board member in the minutes?



Owners can request minutes, and I will get the info. for you about how to do it.


----------



## Renny30 (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm going to call Monday and see if I can get my entry into the system sped up a bit. I'm a part of the beatdown middle class with kids at home.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

*Update - How to vote*

I just received my card in the mail - it has a unique url and password for each owner to use to vote online.  It was mailed from AZ on Sept. 19th.

I will go vote and report back to you!


----------



## Pmuppet (Sep 22, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> SDO Owners - The SDO board is planning major and costly renovations for the resort.



Do we have any ball park estimates on the cost of the renovations/ special assessments?

I am wondering if it might be $500 per TS week or $10,000.  Any insight is appreciated.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 22, 2012)

Pmuppet said:


> Do we have any ball park estimates on the cost of the renovations/ special assessments?
> 
> I am wondering if it might be $500 per TS week or $10,000.  Any insight is appreciated.



I thought earlier this yer a SDO board member posted that there won't be a need for a special assessment. Does anyone recall or have time to search for that post?


----------



## sb2313 (Sep 22, 2012)

*It's in this thread*

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166124

About midway thru. If someone can pm me on how to link a specific post I can edit, but not sure how sorry!!


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

Pmuppet said:


> Do we have any ball park estimates on the cost of the renovations/ special assessments?
> 
> I am wondering if it might be $500 per TS week or $10,000.  Any insight is appreciated.



The budget hasn't been decided yet - that's why this election is so important.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 22, 2012)

*OK - this is what the ballot looks like:  I highlighted my selections:*



> Your response is required for Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association. Please click on the following link to review a copy of the Meeting Notice. Once you have made your selections, please click the "Submit" button below to transmit your voting preferences. Thank you.
> PROXY - SCOTTSDALE PINNACLE OWNERS ASSOCIATION
> 
> The below signed, as member(s) of Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association (the "Association"), do hereby appoint EITHER the Association's Secretary or a member of my/our choosing as indicated below, as my/our proxyholder. I/we further appoint such person as my/our true and lawful attorney-in-fact and proxy, to vote in my/our place and stead on my/our behalf, and in accord with my/our wishes as indicated herein, as though I/we were present and voting, with power of substitution, at the Annual Meeting of the Members of Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association, to be held at 10:00 a.m. MST on Thursday, October 18, 2012 at the Sheraton Desert Oasis Villas, Scottsdale, 17700 North Hayden Road, Scottsdale, Arizona, and at any adjournment thereof, hereby revoking all previous proxies.
> ...


----------



## pointsjunkie (Sep 22, 2012)

has anyone seen the new model finished? i will in Az in november, can we go see it?


----------



## krj9999 (Sep 22, 2012)

Got my card in the mail today and voted.  Concur with Denise's board choices.  Will be requesting board meeting minutes.  Don't know why they can't just put them on mystarcentral.


----------



## jarta (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I'd be happy to give you an example:  Even though there are many weighty issues before the board right now, one board member's greatest concern is getting the rest of the board members to give him a special dispensation to rent a full-size car, at the SDO owner's expense, when he attends board meetings.  On all other issues, he adamantly supports Starwood's recommendations, and refuses to consider any independent suggestions from the board.
> 
> That's not my idea of an independent thinker, and that's not the guy I want voting on a special assessment.





> Denise, where is this info? Now that I'm a SDO owner, I'd like to read the minutes from the last few meetings etc. Is this absurd statement from a board member in the minutes?





> Owners can request minutes, and I will get the info. for you about how to do it.



When Ken asked where is this information, you said you would get him the information on how to obtain board minutes. But, your answer does not say where you got the information. 

Was it in board minutes you read?  If not, who told you this story?  Is that person running for the board?

Did the rest of the board members give the board member the rental car he asked for?  Or, did they turn him down?  And, is he even one of the 2 board members up for reelection?

And, to answer Ken's question, a board member posted on TUG that there are sufficient reserves to fund the renovation without a special assessment.  I have no idea if he was lying or telling the truth.

I do not know who would be the best members to vote for.  But, I do know that SDO has a low MF per StarOption ratio now.  So, the current board cannot be doing such a bad job holding down MFs.  However, I have also suggested that after the renovation (using reserves) the annual MFs might have to increase.   Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

Geez jarta - not the thumb screws!  :rofl:

I have several absolutely reliable sources of info. that I talk to on a regular basis, but for some strange reason, I just don't feel like confiding in you...  

Everything I posted can be verified by simply requesting the minutes - but you probably have to be an owner at SDO.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 23, 2012)

Renny30 said:


> I'm going to call Monday and see if I can get my entry into the system sped up a bit. I'm a part of the beatdown middle class with kids at home.



A side track... Middle class covers a wide spectrum.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class


----------



## jarta (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Geez jarta - not the thumb screws!  :rofl:
> 
> I have several absolutely reliable sources of info. that I talk to on a regular basis, but for some strange reason, I just don't feel like confiding in you...
> 
> Everything I posted can be verified by simply requesting the minutes - but you probably have to be an owner at SDO.



I'm glad to hear that everything you posted is written in the minutes.  Could you post a few quotes from the minutes that illustrate the problem?  Like, the part about the board member getting his rental car?  

I was just concerned on how to match up your support for board changes with your recommendations to newbies to buy at SDO because the MFs are so low.  But, SDO needs a renovation.  There is a lot of deferred maintenance.  (I know because I've been there.  Have you ever visited SDO?)   Salty


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 23, 2012)

So this thread makes me think the refurbs or deferring of maintenance that leads to the needs for large scale refurbs are a result of Starwood pushes/encouragement or lack of.  Especially since it seems that as one property (various SVR, then SBP, now SDO) finishes, it  is time for another to begin.  It also seems that these Starwood managed properties have no clue how to manage the proper reserves for regularly scheduled maintenance issues like painting, replacing carpeting/tile, linens, bedding and appliances.  

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe SDO has enough reserves to do it without raising the fees more than $50-$100 for a year or two.  Hopefully the resorts that have been redone now not have to worry that in 5-7 years it will be there turn again to pay over and above the regular MF's.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 23, 2012)

We only own an EOY 2 bed, 1-52.  I will still vote, but I am actually pretty happy we only own the one.  

SBP is always my concern. If they increase fees any more, it will be painful.  I keep hoping for a fee drop, but every year they increase the fees more, thus the resale value on eBay, which is so low, they are giving current year's usage with purchase.


----------



## Pmuppet (Sep 23, 2012)

rickandcindy23 said:


> We only own an EOY 2 bed, 1-52.  I will still vote, but I am actually pretty happy we only own the one.
> 
> SBP is always my concern. If they increase fees any more, it will be painful.  I keep hoping for a fee drop, but every year they increase the fees more, thus the resale value on eBay, which is so low, they are giving current year's usage with purchase.



With this potential special assessment (which i find annoying cause i specifically researched if the belief that the cash reserves would insulate our recent purchase from special assessments), i bet you see a lot of owners dump the SDO property.

I hope the assessment is reasonable if they have one.  Cause you can only raise so much from an assessment.  Because the more you charge, the more assessment defaults occur.  Then that just mean a few pay the majority.  

Sounds like a theme of an event this November.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

That's why this election is so important - the final decision about how to structure the funding *hasn't been made yet *- it all depends on who is calling the shots on the BOD:   *VOTE!*


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 23, 2012)

Pmuppet said:


> With this potential special assessment (which i find annoying cause i specifically researched if the belief that the cash reserves would insulate our recent purchase from special assessments), i bet you see a lot of owners dump the SDO property.
> 
> I hope the assessment is reasonable if they have one.  Cause you can only raise so much from an assessment.  Because the more you charge, the more assessment defaults occur.  Then that just mean a few pay the majority.
> 
> Sounds like a theme of an event this November.



There are 2 points that I want to bring up.  

1) In last year's annual meeting it was believed that a special assessment will not be needed.  Of course we do not know if there will be a special assessment or not until Starwood and HOA actually figure out the details of the refurbishments and after the bids are in.

2) For many TUGgers who bought SDO because it is a great trader, just think how much money you have saved/not spent/will not be spending by making those exceptional trades.  I do not agree that SDO owners would dump their units unless they are short-sighted.  If owners need to pay a small amount for a special assessment it is still not much compared to what you would have needed to pay for the TS that SDO has traded into.  As an example half of a SDO L/O + II exchange comes up to no more than $700 a week, and it can easily trade into a Princeville 2BR (and other timeshare that you can fill in the blanks).  I just booked my inter-island flight on Hawaiian Airlines and it prompted me various hotels to book.  It showed the same 2BR Princeville unit cost a little under $6,000.


----------



## Pmuppet (Sep 23, 2012)

sptung said:


> There are 2 points that I want to bring up.
> 
> 1) In last year's annual meeting it was believed that a special assessment will not be needed.  Of course we do not know if there will be a special assessment or not until Starwood and HOA actually figure out the details of the refurbishments and after the bids are in.



This is EXACTLY what concerns me.  The question is what has changed in a year, when last year, they felt there were adequate reserves to cover the necessary improvements.

Have they changed the concept of what they think the improvements required are and therefore, want to spend like they are congress?

Or has another event occurred which makes these costs a requirement and unexpected.

The starting answer to ALL special assessment should always be "no", imo.  Assessments can be necessary, but should be the exception.

I definitely want the SDO to continue its trend and if that calls for a small (few hundred dollars per two bedroom annual week assessment), i can understand that.

What concerns me is if the assessment is much larger?  How can a large assessment requirement just sneak up on people over the course of a year without any significant events (hurricane, flood, discovery of asbestis)?

That doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 23, 2012)

I think it is not likely to go the special assessment route.  Starwood felt it necessary to invite owners that paid the SA to join SVN in order to keep them.  If an additional $900-1500 is needed to complete the renovations I bet they just increase MF's $200-$400 per year for the next several years to cover the deficit and to cover the increase in defaults caused by the increase in MF's.  I'm not sure that new board members will be able to stop it from happening if that is what Starwood thinks needs to happen but it certainly wouldn't hurt to vote for board members that you feel would represent you better than the current ones.  It would be nice to know what the proposed budget was going to be before the elections because it may be too late to stop the 2013 budget even with new members.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

Here is one proposal - this would be on top of the funds in reserve.

*To cover the cost of a $17 million renovation, current estimates show a maintenance fee increase of about 30% spread out over 3 years as follows: 7% (2012), 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there would be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. *


----------



## Pmuppet (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Here is one proposal:
> 
> *To cover the cost of a $17 million renovation, current estimates show a maintenance fee increase of about 30% spread out over 3 years as follows: 7% (2012), 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there would be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. *



Anyone know how many units are at SDO (and by size if possible).  Wondering the breakdown of the per unit fee.  I would expect a 20% default rate due to the economy on whatever assessment that might occur.

The default rate will obviously climb the more zeros you put on the assessment.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 23, 2012)

...and I would imagine this would be on top of the normal 5-10% Starwood annual increase.


----------



## scootr5 (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Here is one proposal - this would be on top of the funds in reserve.
> 
> *To cover the cost of a $17 million renovation, current estimates show a maintenance fee increase of about 30% spread out over 3 years as follows: 7% (2012), 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there would be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. *



Just curious where/when that proposal is from Denise, since 2012 is almost over. Does that mean they would intend to make 2013 19%, or defer it another year?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

scootr5 said:


> Just curious where/when that proposal is from Denise, since 2012 is almost over. Does that mean they would intend to make 2013 19%, or defer it another year?



Nothing has been decided, so I'm guessing that this will all be pushed forward one year, because it's still under discussion, but I don't really know.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Here is one proposal - this would be on top of the funds in reserve.
> 
> *To cover the cost of a $17 million renovation, current estimates show a maintenance fee increase of about 30% spread out over 3 years as follows: 7% (2012), 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there would be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. *



Assuming an annual MF for SDO is ~$1000, then you're implying a $300 charge over three years to cover these improvements and an on-going increase of $120 starting in 2015. Along with others, I also suspect this does not include typical annual increases. Even so, if true, in my opinion a $300 charge is not something to be upset about if it really will improve the resort and continue making our resort a wonderful value for us. It's the on-going increase starting in 2015 which concerns me...do they envision these improvements will require more upkeep than the current infrastructure? Why a 12% reduction in 2015? Something doesn't make sense about this info.


----------



## Pmuppet (Sep 23, 2012)

Pmuppet said:


> Anyone know how many units are at SDO (and by size if possible).  Wondering the breakdown of the per unit fee.



I called SDO and they confirmed there are 150 2bedroom units.  Wondering how "realistic" the proposed $17 million renovation is?

What concerns me is this the figure they are selling everyone knowing their true plans are much more grande.

Can you tell that i subscribe to the theory, plan for the worst, hope for the best?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Why a 12% reduction in 2015? Something doesn't make sense about this info.



And will there really be a 12% reduction? - or will the MF continue on to be 30% higher on-going, with additional yearly increases?

Remember - this is all still being discussed.


----------



## Quiet Pine (Sep 23, 2012)

I attended last year's owners' meeting, and just looked up my Oct. 20 post. 

"SDO is 12 years old and a major refurbishment is planned for 2013-2014. By 2014, it will be a whole new resort. There are $7 to $8 million in reserves and no special assessment is anticipated. Part of renovation will be $900,000 for Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for 2012 to avoid liability/lawsuits."

MF did jump in 2012, which they indicated was to pay for the refurbishment. I don't remember hearing about increases in 2013 and 2014 also, but perhaps they didn't want to roll out all bad news at once.

I received the owners' meeting postcard in the mail, and will vote online. I trust Denise completely; I'm grateful she has researched candidates; I will vote as she suggests.

Semicolons above are in honor of tomorrow's National Punctuation Day.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> And will there really be a 12% reduction? - or will the MF continue on to be 30% higher on-going, with additional yearly increases?
> 
> Remember - this is all still being discussed.



Of course, but your earlier post is very confusing. Is it 30%  spread over three years, or a 30% increase and then a 12% reduction? These are two different paths and it's not clear to me which you meant.

I think we all want to make informed decisions. I agree totally that we need non-Starwood indepedent thinkers who question the management proposals and truly represent the owners. That said, I do not believe in increasing fear of high fees without adequate info. At this point, there's really no public info that either supports or detracts from the concept of an increase. I'll vote in favor of indepedent candidates exactly as Denise suggests, but I'm not buying into the notion of an unsupported and unsubstantiated increase in MF...yet. Hopefully the board will weigh all the options as they are obligated to do, perform their own research if needed, and reach a decision which is best for the resort and the owners. While we may be predisposed to believe how this will turn out based on other Starwood resorts, I'm not going to state today that I don't think the SDO board will act in their fiduciary manner for the owners. I just don't have enough info to say anything like that, and there doesn't seem to be enough public info to reach any decision on this matter. Am I missing something?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 23, 2012)

SBP fees are very high, with the 2 bed standard around $1,100 currently, and the 2 bed lock-off units are over $1,400.  I see no information forthcoming from SBP to say the fees are going to go down next year.  I am very concerned we will get yet another increase.  

The SDO increases will indeed get a lot of people to bail, and you will see more on eBay over the next few years.  They will be cheap to buy, especially with the increased fees, but hopefully it will be a temporary increase.  SBP's increase seems pretty permanent.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 23, 2012)

Denise, Where did you get your information about the proposal of fee increase?  Would they not be in the annual meeting?  I don't recall reading any literature about what you have posted.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Of course, but your earlier post is very confusing. Is it 30%  spread over three years, or a 30% increase and then a 12% reduction? These are two different paths and it's not clear to me which you meant.



What is being discussed, is a 30% increase spread over 3 years, and then a 12% reduction.



sptung said:


> Denise, Where did you get your information about the proposal of fee increase?  Would they not be in the annual meeting?  I don't recall reading any literature about what you have posted.



Per my posts above: at this point - it's just a discussion - it has not been finalized - so there has been no announcement.  The final plan could be entirely different, but people asked for more info. and this is one option that is currently being discussed by the BOD.


----------



## grgs (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:
			
		

> *To cover the cost of a $17 million renovation, current estimates show a maintenance fee increase of about 30% spread out over 3 years as follows: 7% (2012), 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there would be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees.*





scootr5 said:


> Just curious where/when that proposal is from Denise, since 2012 is almost over. Does that mean they would intend to make 2013 19%, or defer it another year?



SDO 2012 fees did increase between 8-10%.  See the 2012 mf thread beginning with post #82:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157274&page=4

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

So - what do you think is worse/better? - A one-time special assessment with a clear end date, or a 30% increase in the MF which could be permanent?  Of course it depends on how much a special assessment would be, but a 30% increase in the MF could cost us far more over time.  

Those are my concerns, and that's why this is an important election.


----------



## YYJMSP (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Here is one proposal - this would be on top of the funds in reserve.
> 
> *To cover the cost of a $17 million renovation, current estimates show a maintenance fee increase of about 30% spread out over 3 years as follows: 7% (2012), 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there would be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. *



For comparison:

SVR Cascades (426 units) was advertised as $40.5 million, covered partly from reserve funds ($7.5 million) and partly from a special assessment ($33 million).  The SA was ~$750 (1BR), ~$1570 (2BR) and ~$2040 (2BR L/O) and was taken in 3 equal installments.  MFs returned to "normal" after the refurbishment...

SVR Spas (248 units) was advertised as $24 million, covered partly from reserve funds ($3.3 million) and partly from a special assessment ($20.7 million).  The SA was ~$1,625 (2BR) and was taken in 3 equal installments.  MFs returned to "normal" after the refurbishment...

I believe SDO is 228 units (according the SVN disclosure docs)


----------



## jarta (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> So - what do you think is worse/better? - A one-time special assessment with a clear end date, or a 30% increase in the MF which could be permanent?  Of course it depends on how much a special assessment would be, but a 30% increase in the MF could cost us far more over time.
> 
> Those are my concerns, and that's why this is an important election.



That's a false equivalency.  I don't think you understand that a special assessment is an assessment outside the estimate of expenses in the annual budget which has been adopted and for which the annual MF is adopted to achieve balance.

Your choice is better stated as increasing the annual budget one year by 30% or increasing the annual budget 10% per year as the renovation progresses.  One gets all the money at once.  One gets the same amount over a 3 year period.

A special assessment is usually reserved for unbudgeted expenses which are not contemplated in any budget but must be fixed rather quickly before the next annual budget is adopted.

One way or another, the necessary work for the renovation must go forward.  The 2 major decisions are the work to be included in the RFP (Request for Proposal) and the selection of the winning bid after the bids come in.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_proposal

You can hold down costs by omitting work to be done from the RFP.  But, that's just deferring maintenance to another day.

You can waste money by having too few bidders or incompetent bidders bid on the job.  But, once you get 3 bids from reputable contractors, you usually go with the lowest bidder.

However, more importantly, are the people you are boosting for the board in favor of collecting all expenses at once or all over 3 years?  Or, do they want to omit part of the renovation from the RFP?  Or, do they have reputable contractors that will do it cheaper?

I admit that both doing it right and for a low cost is important.     Salty


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 23, 2012)

Going back to the original topic of election, whether to elect one candidate over another the mailer should have published each person's philosophy regarding the upcoming refurbishment.  Otherwise we are voting blindly.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

I think the real question is:  Do you want board members who will look at all the options with an open mind and make the best decisions for *owners*, or do you want board members who will simply rubber stamp whatever Starwood puts before them?


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I think the real question is:  Do you want board members who will look at all the options with an open mind and make the best decisions for *owners*, or do you want board members who will simply rubber stamp whatever Starwood puts before them?



Reading their bio does not tell me who will be the rubber stamper.  In reading their bio I do find that one existing board member (John Cummings) appear not to be a good fit to be on a BOD, great credentials but I don't see how it would tie back to representing owners.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

Exactly - and that's why I wrote my first post and provided more info. about the candidates and the make up of the current board, and explained why I am voting for Charles and Jody.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Exactly - and that's why I wrote my first post and provided more info. about the candidates and explained why I am voting for Charles and Jody.



[Deleted at sptung's request - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2012)

Charles is a good representative of the demographics of the owners at the resort:  local, middle class, young father.  I see this as a positive.  The current board is made up mostly of high-income retired people, who bought from the developer, and they simply go along with the Starwood party line.  We need independent thinkers who will represent owners FIRST.


----------



## jarta (Sep 23, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Charles is a good representative of the demographics of the owners at the resort:  local, middle class, young father.  I see this as a positive.  The current board is made up mostly of high-income retired people, who bought from the developer, and they simply go along with the Starwood party line.  We need independent thinkers who will represent owners FIRST.



The decision of who is best qualified to run a multi-million dollar enterprise like SDO should not be about whether a person is local or lives in Texas, or Canada, or Pennsylvania, or Canada (most board meetings are done by phone these days).  It should not be about whether a person is very rich or middle class.  It should not be about who is a good young father or a good older grandfather.

It certainly should not be about who bought from the developer at the resort for a lot of money or who bought for pennies on the dollar to never visit SDO and only go elsewhere.

It should be about who has the judgment and experience to run the resort well.  I know none of these people.  They all look decently qualified to me. (With Baron probably the least qualified if I had to rank them based on the resumes alone.)

However, I resent unsupported insinuations that the present SDO board - which has no Starwood employees at all - has only Starwood's interests at heart - and not the interests of the owners of the resort.  I just can't understand how the insinuations can withstand scrutiny when SDO has the lowest MFs per StarOption and, therefore, the best benefits of ownership for both SVN and II traders and consistently gets high reviews on TUG.  Someone must be doing something right!

The insinuation that the SDO board doesn't represent owners seems more like the same type of baloney that almost sunk WSJ where renovations were so delayed that, when they were finally performed, they cost more than if the resort had been better maintained earlier.  

Just my personal opinion about what this thread is all about.  I don't get to vote at SDO.  I assume that if Baron and Dr. Lee are elected, they will become like Phil Schrag and Bob Werbel at WSJ and will realize why the renovation is so expensive but absolutely necessary.   Salty


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

[Deleted at sptung's request - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 24, 2012)

jarta said:


> The decision of who is best qualified to run a multi-million dollar enterprise like SDO should not be about whether a person is local or lives in Texas, or Canada, or Pennsylvania, or Canada (most board meetings are done by phone these days).  It should not be about whether a person is very rich or middle class.  It should not be about who is a good young father or a good older grandfather.
> 
> It certainly should not be about who bought from the developer at the resort for a lot of money or who bought for pennies on the dollar to never visit SDO and only go elsewhere.
> 
> ...



All fair points.  

Oh, and SDO has now been officially removed from my Ebay watch list.


----------



## hypnotiq (Sep 24, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> All fair points.
> 
> Oh, and SDO has now been officially removed from my Ebay watch list.



Sweet! Less competition. :whoopie:


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

Let me make one thing crystal clear:  This thread is *not* about whether or not renovations are needed by the resort - clearly renovations are needed, and indeed, required by law.

The question is whether *owners* are going to make those decisions, or Starwood is going to make those decisions.  

If you want to hand Starwood a blank check - then vote for the status quo.  

If you want *owners* to make the decisions - then let's get some new leadership on the board who will look at things with fresh eyes and open minds.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 24, 2012)

Someone like Charles is needed to represent owners, not just Starwood. If fees at SDO increase as much as some of these proposals show you can be sure delinquencies are going to increase drastically and then cause the fees to go up even more. 

SDO may need a refurbishment but now isnt the time. There are too many people unable or unwilling to pay large increases in fees. 

If SDO owners are looking for someone to represent them, and to not just rubber stamp everything that Starwood wants, I encourage you to vote for Charles and Jody.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

Does Villas of Cave Creek mean anything?  Beware of having owners who only worry about costs on HOA board.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung said:


> Does Villas of Cave Creek mean anything?  Beware of having owners who only worry about costs on HOA board.



Haven't you already gone on record saying that you'd be happy to pay a $3,000 special assessment at every TS you own if it improved the resorts?


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Haven't you already gone on record saying that you'd be happy to pay a $3,000 special assessment at every TS you own if it improved the resorts?



For SDO only, yes, if it includes a nice sit-down restaurant.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung said:


> For SDO only, yes, if it includes a nice sit-down restaurant.


Which should pay for itself and not be an amenity provided by owners.  A nice restaurant should attract people outside of the resort.  We eat at the Westin Princeville restaurant, even when we don't stay there because they have good food.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung:  You are welcome to your views, and to post them on TUG, but I don't think your views represent the majority of owners.  Starwood works for owners - not the other way around.



sptung said:


> *Being a Starwood owner I do want not any Starwood TS BOD to not comply with Starwood demands.*  Any timeshare that drops out of a "chain" would lose its ability to trade within the system and lose trading power in an exchange company. * So if the BOD comprises of all Starwood employees so be it.  If timeshare owners do not like how the timeshare is run and/or its high maintenance fees the owners can get rid of their timeshare.*





sptung said:


> If the special assessment is justified, yes I am happy.   *As an example if SDO wants $3000 in special assessment to put in a couple of great restaurants on site I would gladly pay it.  I own 2 SDO units and if it costs me $6000 to get the TS to what I consider to be a great timeshare I would gladly pay it.*  SDO is missing a restaurant on site and that's my biggest pet peeve as to why I consider it not to be on par with other Starwood TS.


----------



## jarta (Sep 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Let me make one thing crystal clear:  This thread is *not* about whether or not renovations are needed by the resort - clearly renovations are needed, and indeed, required by law.
> 
> The question is whether *owners* are going to make those decisions, or Starwood is going to make those decisions.
> 
> ...



"Fresh eyes and open minds" are necessary to prevent Starwood from getting a "blank check" when the SDO board has historically run SDO so that it has the lowest MFs per StarOption in the SVO?  Obviously, the SDO board (not Starwood and not the owners) will make the decisions on the renovations.  Whoever is on the board will have to exercise his or her best judgment about what's best for the resort as a whole.

I hope the quality of the home resort, not the cost of MFs used for trading elsewhere, remains the biggest concern of the board at SDO.  In the end, all that is guaranteed in deeded timesharing is the right to stay where you purchased in the season (float) or week (fixed) you purchased.    Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

> when the SDO board has historically run SDO so that it has the lowest MFs per StarOption in the SVO?



jarta - so that you will quit repeating yourself, I am going to respond, once:  You are not an owner at SDO, and I have no intention of responding to any of your posts.  Have a great day!


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 24, 2012)

gmarine said:


> SDO may need a refurbishment but now isnt the time. There are too many people unable or unwilling to pay large increases in fees.



I think this is a valid concern.

I haven't stayed at SDO. Is the resort really showing its age? Is it at risk of losing its status in II? Can the renovations wait one, two or perhaps even three more years? 

Many HOAs are deferring major projects due to the economy. Why should our resort be any different? Perhaps there is a short-term solution, or partial renovation, which would be sufficient for a few years. I wonder if the board will even be presented such an option by Starwood. I see nothing wrong with attempting to upgrade and/or refurbish the resort using only those funds in reserve.


----------



## jarta (Sep 24, 2012)

> I haven't stayed at SDO. Is the resort really showing its age? Is it at risk of losing its status in II? Can the renovations wait one, two or perhaps even three more years?



Yes.  Probably not.  Not really.  You should visit where you own every so often.   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 24, 2012)

jarta said:


> Yes.  Probably not.  Not really.  You should visit where you own every so often.   Salty



Jim,

I am constantly amazed at your lack of tact, consideration, simple understanding, and jump to conclusions. 

I have posted numerous times this year that I bought SDO recently. I haven't even had a use year yet, though I have no intention of visiting SDO in the near future. And why visit where I own? I bought this unit for trade, which is a completely acceptable use of the week. Your assumption that I, or that other, owners would want to visit where we own is not applicable to all. It may be good for you, and you may even think it's a requirement for ownership...but it's not. 

I asked a reasonable question, and you responded by insulting me with your insinuation that I should know more about the resort where I own. If I, or others, are made to feel attacked by asking reasonable questions, all you accomplish is prevent those (who don't want to engage you at all by responding, as I am doing now against my better judgment) from speaking up and asking questions in the first place. You really need to think before you write and try to comprehend how your post may be interpreted. There are any number of ways you could have written a polite, considerate response - especially since you've been to this resort and have first hand knowledge of the status of its upkeep. 

Next time, be aware of what you write and how best you want it considered. Hopefully, you will not respond to this because if you do, I'm sure in the next ~10 resulting posts this thread will be locked.

Ken


----------



## Quadmaniac (Sep 24, 2012)

gmarine said:


> Someone like Charles is needed to represent owners, not just Starwood. If fees at SDO increase as much as some of these proposals show you can be sure delinquencies are going to increase drastically and then cause the fees to go up even more.
> 
> SDO may need a refurbishment but now isnt the time. There are too many people unable or unwilling to pay large increases in fees.



I don't think there will ever be a "good" time as there will always be people who won't or can't pay increases in MF. Owning a timeshare comes with liabilities and this is one of them. Of course we should try to keep it as reasonable as possible to do a good job rather than having to go back to do it again later for more money. From past history of SDO having the lowest MF, it does seem that they have been reasonably prudent in spending, but as others have said, it doesn't hurt having some new blood on the board occasionally.

What we don't want to happen is to wait until it is too late and easy fixes/maintenance becomes major overhauls costing us much more. I see that everyday at work where things are put off and the $250 job now becomes $3500 as the damage has progressed so rapidly since it was first identified.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 24, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I think this is a valid concern.
> 
> I haven't stayed at SDO. Is the resort really showing its age? Is it at risk of losing its status in II? Can the renovations wait one, two or perhaps even three more years?
> 
> Many HOAs are deferring major projects due to the economy. Why should our resort be any different? Perhaps there is a short-term solution, or partial renovation, which would be sufficient for a few years. I wonder if the board will even be presented such an option by Starwood. I see nothing wrong with attempting to upgrade and/or refurbish the resort using only those funds in reserve.



Denise has the right view. It is not that the existing Board hasn't managed to hold fees down - they obviously have as it is the lowest in the system. But lowest doesn't mean, and in fact may identify, a resort that has been "used up" and living off past investments rather than keeping things in top shape and up to date.

Renovations as massive as this resort needs do not occur overnight. Usually they need to be done in three or more rounds of work to blocks of units. It takes planning and the knowledge that the money will be available when required.  

Then there is the question of who or what is the primary recipient of the dollars collected. The Board owes its allegiance to the RESORT and thus the owners. They need to consider Starwood as they may set the bar for the type and quality of work done but first and foremost is the resort. They should not be bullied into accepting no bid or predetermined contracts, should not be paying a premium for contractors/supplies/equipment etc to Starwood  or protecting the managements profit margins.  It should be getting the maximum return for every dollar spend for the RESORT. 

Finally when you have fees as low as they have enjoyed for years it isn't a one time situation once this work is done and paid for. The day the unit is completed it starts to become used and dated.  It should last 7-10 years but that is the maximum. Properly done the fees will remain higher tan today to begin to save up for the inevitable next round of improvements.  Otherwise the problem will repeat itself. Your resort is always improving or deteriorating - they do not stay the same. 

Having independent, informed and caring owners rather than management appointees on the Board of any resort is the desired outcome.  Control by management, no matter who it may be, is never in the owners best interest. 

I don't own there but if I did I would follow Denise's line of thinking and her recommendations for voting.   Wishing the best outcome for all.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

I just wanted to point out that John (timeos2) is a on the board at his own resort, and as I recall, he has stayed at SDO, himself.


----------



## ada903 (Sep 24, 2012)

I think some people are too fast at stereotyping.  I wouldn't rush to call anyone anti Starwood or penny pincher.  People should go re-read the actual bios, not the speculation of some on the board. I do not find a single candidate described as 'penny-pincher' or 'anti-Starwood' in the bios. Such a candidate would NEVER make it past the resumes and interviews required to be nominated by Starwood & the current board for this election.

There is only one incumbent running, John Cummings.  While there are two open seats, there is only one incumbent. John's bio practically takes up more space than the other candidates combined, but John makes not a single mention about what he is going to do for SDO. John has been on the board for 9 of the past 10 years. What about high owner delinquencies? What about low resale values? What about lower than needed reserves for the upcoming refurbishments? Jarta (who doesn't own SDO) backs John Cummings as being right for the job for keeping SDO fees among the lowest, but then Jarta goes on to complain the resort is poorly maintained and needs higher fees to pay for major refurbishments... Well, Jarta can't have it both ways! 

Fees have gone up faster than inflation every year. There remains a high rate of owner delinquencies. Now we hear there may not be enough money in reserves to cover the upcoming refurbishment. There is a lack of transparency of communication from the current board to owners on all of these topics. It is time for a change. That doesn't mean any of the candidates will block the refurbishment, nobody is running on that platform. It just simply means that we need fresh owner eyes to oversee the refurbishment when it happens.

I like what Charles and Jody stand for: 

Charles:
"His purpose in running for the board is to keep steady focus on resolving the foreclosure delinquency crisis, maintaining high resort ratings and being disciplined with balancing the budget. Doing so, will improve ownership value, customer satisfaction and ensure fees stay reasonable for everyone."

Jody:
"Volunteering has been a rewarding part of Jody’s life and she takes pride in contributing her skills to help an organization achieve defined goals and seek win/win situations. She welcomes the opportunity to serve on the Scottsdale Pinnacle Board alongside the administration team in order to promote SDO’s future financial health."

Charles Baron & Jody Lee are the only two candidate running that even mention the reason why they are running!  Nobody on TUG claims to know any of the candidates, so all the class warfare speculation is nonsense... All we have to go on is a failed incumbent and three new potential candidates for two open seats, of which only two say why they are running. Charles & Jody both appear balanced in their position statements on high quality maintenance aligned with finances.

It also may be helpful to question why no owners have seen pictures or heard details about the proposed refurbishments. At the last annual meeting, Starwood and the board promised to share this info with owners, but so far, nothing! Owners should get a chance to see proposals and give feedback to the board.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

ada903 said:


> It also may be helpful to question why no owners have seen pictures or heard details about the proposed refurbishments. At the last annual meeting, Starwood and the board promised to share this info with owners, but so far, nothing! Owners should get a chance to see proposals and give feedback to the board.



My understanding is that the pictures have not been released, because there hasn't been a final decision made about how extensive the renovations will be.

[ADDED]

I just reviewed my notes and here is an example:  In the model there is an area where they raised the ceiling - this was not to make it ADA compliant, and it's not to correct a problem, or something old or out-dated - it just makes it more aesthetically pleasing.  But - it's an expensive component, so the board will have to decide if they are going to include things like this in renovations, or focus on ADA compliance and specific items that are worn out, or need updating.

When I have enough info., I will put together a poll.


----------



## jarta (Sep 24, 2012)

> I have no intention of visiting SDO in the near future. And why visit where I own? I bought this unit for trade, which is a completely acceptable use of the week.



Ken,   ...   Sorry you don't like my posting style.  I tell it like I see it.

Trading out is an acceptable use of the week.  So is staying at the resort for the week.  But, owner/users and owner/traders may have differing points of view about the extent, quality and timing of renovations. 

Someone who buys only for the low MF with no intention to stay at the resort - but only to trade somewhere else that has higher MFs - might not be as interested in the state of repair of the place he will not stay at.  If all a person does is trade out, not doing a full renovation, not spending money to make the place nicer and not renovating as often would be mighty tempting.  If an owner/trader can get 1-3 more years without a renovation, why not trade for 1-3 more years and then dump the timeshare?

The owner/user might prefer to have 1-3 years use at a fully-renovated timeshare.  

Different types of owners.  Hopefully the same types of priorities for the long-term future of the resort.  But, human nature can be funny.   Salty


----------



## grgs (Sep 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I'd be happy to give you an example:  Even though there are many weighty issues before the board right now, one board member's greatest concern is getting the rest of the board members to give him a special dispensation to rent a full-size car, at the SDO owner's expense, when he attends board meetings.  On all other issues, he adamantly supports Starwood's recommendations, and refuses to consider any independent suggestions from the board.
> 
> That's not my idea of an independent thinker, and that's not the guy I want voting on a special assessment.



I requested and received the minutes for the last year's worth of SDO meetings.  I didn't see anything in them discussing the situation you mentioned above.  The minutes are really very sparse, and don't provide the level of detail as you give above.  Did I request the wrong docs?  

Thanks,

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

Hi Glorian - This request was made at the most recent meeting, and I have been told that the minutes are not available yet.  What is the most recent date that you have?

I did a little more research:

My sources also stated that a FORMAL motion was not made, so it may or may not be in the minutes - we won't know until they come out.  

I also found out that the request for a full-sized car was informally made during the meeting, the board did not approve it, and the board member was directed to make their request before the next board meeting.


----------



## jarta (Sep 24, 2012)

grgs said:


> I requested and received the minutes for the last year's worth of SDO meetings.  I didn't see anything in them discussing the situation you mentioned above.  The minutes are really very sparse, and don't provide the level of detail as you give above.  Did I request the wrong docs?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Glorian



I had no doubt that the allegations, despite the original's poster's assurances, would not be found in any minutes.  The information did not come from any minutes anyone could read.  The allegation could only come from someone who was there.  I doubt the poster who made the allegations has ever been to SDO (although there is a claim of ownership).  What candidate is local and says he goes to the meetings?

Even if a formal motion was made at the last meeting, if that motion died because of a lack of a second, it would never come to a vote and the vote would never show in the minutes of the meeting.

There is no evidence of any need to set SDO FREE.  It's not now in chains.  Thanks for the information.    Salty


----------



## grgs (Sep 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Hi Glorian - This request was made at the most recent meeting, and I have been told that the minutes are not available yet.  What is the most recent date that you have?



The last minutes I received are date 7/12/12.  It is a pity that the minutes are not more detailed.  Also, they reference reports that have been made, but do not attach them, or at least provide a synopsis.

Glorian


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

Denise, your signature/footer of "*FREE the Sheraton Desert Oasis - Vote for Charles and Jody and elect an OWNER controlled board!*"  Free SDO from Starwood and join Villas of Cave Creek?  The strong Starwood trader will immediately become a piece of worthless timeshare that one cannot get rid of.  Be careful with what you wish for.


----------



## jarta (Sep 24, 2012)

grgs said:


> The last minutes I received are date 7/12/12.  It is a pity that the minutes are not more detailed.  Also, they reference reports that have been made, but do not attach them, or at least provide a synopsis.
> 
> Glorian



That's why they are called minutes and not seconds.  lol!

Minutes list serious issues discussed and formal actions taken by the board. Minutes are supposed to be pretty terse.  They are not verbatim transcripts of what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes

Minutes are always at least a meeting behind (usually board meetings are held once a month).  Once the meeting is held, the skeletal minutes are written up by the board secretary (usually), distributed and approved by formal vote at the following meeting.  Only after formal approval are the minutes an official record of what happened at the earlier meeting and available to everyone.   Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung - you misunderstand me.  I am absolutely not trying to oust Starwood from management at SDO.  My goal is simply to help elect independent thinkers to the board at SDO, where Starwood works for us, and not the other way around.

Trust me - Starwood wants to stay as well - they have an exclusive on reselling all the foreclosed inventory.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> sptung - you misunderstand me.  I am absolutely not trying to oust Starwood from management at SDO.  My goal is simply to help elect independent thinkers to the board at SDO, where Starwood works for us, and not the other way around.



[Deleted at sptung's request - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## gmarine (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung said:


> Denise, your signature/footer of "*FREE the Sheraton Desert Oasis - Vote for Charles and Jody and elect an OWNER controlled board!*"  Free SDO from Starwood and join Villas of Cave Creek?  The strong Starwood trader will immediately become a piece of worthless timeshare that one cannot get rid of.  Be careful with what you wish for.



Unfortunately, its already close to being worthless. And if fees go up 30% I assure you that you wont be able to give it away just like Sheraton Broadway Plantation.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung said:


> You repeatedly use the phrase independent thinkers.  None of the candidates are Starwood employees.



sptung - did you read my original post? - I gave very specific details about how the current board interacts with Starwood.  They rubber stamp whatever Starwood puts in front of them. I know that you have publicly stated that you believe that's how it should be - but I respectfully disagree with you.

Starwood works for the owners as represented by the BOD - we don't work for them.


----------



## jarta (Sep 24, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> sptung - did you read my original post? - I gave very specific details about how the current board interacts with Starwood.  They rubber stamp whatever Starwood puts in front of them. I know that you have publicly stated that you believe that's how it should be - but I respectfully disagree with you.
> 
> Starwood works for the owners as represented by the BOD - we don't work for them.



I read your original post.  I asked for evidence of the board rubber stamping whatever Starwood puts in front of them.  Your only example was the request for a rental car that was supposedly seen by you in the minutes.  You made it seem that the board took the request seriously.

Now we find out it isn't in the minutes and you admit it was not even anything the SDO board cared enough about to vote on.  

(Surely, you know who that board member is.  I don't know.  Could he be the current board member who is not seeking retention this election?  If so, how will he be voting on any matters affecting the renovation after the upcoming election?)

You can like or dislike Starwood or individual board members.  You can announce who you think will be the better board members.  And, I guess you can even post political slogans as your signature/footer.  BTW, I think the new signature/footer pretty much sums up your Moses-like position. (Set my people FREE!)

But, you should be able to point to something verifiable to support an accusation that Starwood and not the SDO board runs SDO when the facts are SDO has the lowest MF per StarOption ratio in the SVO and no SDO board member works for or has now or had at any other time any apparent additional relationship with Starwood.   Salty


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 24, 2012)

My question is how much is in the reserve for SDO? If the renovations are estimated at $17 million but $15-16 million is already in the reserve then the board is doing a good job operating the resort and their shouldn't be a problem coming up with a plan for the remaining amount.  On the other hand if there is $3-5 million and the resort is looking to come up with another $12-15 million there is a big problem.  That problem would be with Starwood if that is the case.  If Starwood resort after resort has problems budgeting for normal refurbs plus a little extra for ADA modifications which most larger resorts  are also dealing with, then something needs to change.  It is not as though the MF's have been significantly lower than similarly located Marriott resorts but you don't hear about drastic increases when it comes time for the 10-12 year refurbs in one Hilton, Hyatt, or Marriott after another.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2012)

Hi tschwa2 - I have the budget in front of me, and I believe that the reserves are $8,774,631, if I'm reading it right.  Can anyone else confirm that?

Scratch that - I don't think I'm reading it right - sorry.

I will find out and get back to you.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

gmarine said:


> Unfortunately, its already close to being worthless. And if fees go up 30% I assure you that you wont be able to give it away just like Sheraton Broadway Plantation.



But it will still be a really cheap trader to trade into other Westin resorts - Maui, Kaui, HRA where their maintenance fees are still much higher than 1.3x current SDO MFs.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 24, 2012)

sptung said:


> But it will still be a really cheap trader to trade into other Westin resorts - Maui, Kaui, HRA where their maintenance fees are still much higher than 1.3x current SDO MFs.



Unfortunately you cant count on that either. The last few years Starwood and II have made changes that negatively affected the trading power of SDO and I'm afraid that wont be the last time it happens.  Starwood and RCI also made changes that severely diminished the trading power of SDO.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 24, 2012)

gmarine said:


> Unfortunately you cant count on that either. The last few years Starwood and II have made changes that negatively affected the trading power of SDO and I'm afraid that wont be the last time it happens.  Starwood and RCI also made changes that severely diminished the trading power of SDO.



Are you serious?  Currently a 1BR SDO consistently pulls a 2BR Westin Maui and Kaui.  I am not sure what more you can ask for.  Continuing to keep SDO in good condition and up to par with the rest of Starwood resort standard is what will keep the trading power up.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 24, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Jim,
> 
> I am constantly amazed at your lack of tact, consideration, simple understanding, and jump to conclusions.
> 
> ...



C'mon ken, I am a serial trader with no intentions of ever staying at a resort I own, but I can appreciate sarcastic humor. Even had the comment been directed at me, I would have gotten a hearty chuckle out of his post.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 24, 2012)

jarta said:


> Ken,   ...   Sorry you don't like my posting style.  I tell it like I see it.
> 
> Trading out is an acceptable use of the week.  So is staying at the resort for the week.  But, owner/users and owner/traders may have differing points of view about the extent, quality and timing of renovations.
> 
> ...



I am one of those types of owners you indict, but you make very poignant points indeed.  I would give deference to those owners who occupy rather than trade, because on the surface I would presume them to care more about the resort than the trading power, whose interests do not necessarily coincide.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 24, 2012)

jarta said:


> I read your original post.  I asked for evidence of the board rubber stamping whatever Starwood puts in front of them.  Your only example was the request for a rental car that was supposedly seen by you in the minutes.  You made it seem that the board took the request seriously.
> 
> Now we find out it isn't in the minutes and you admit it was not even anything the SDO board cared enough about to vote on.
> 
> ...



You are like the Starwood Jesus today.  Turning over the moneychanger's tables and preaching the truth, but being dissed and dismissed by the self-professed elders and sages nonetheless. A prophet is not without honor accept in his own hometown among his own people.  Preach brother.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 25, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> C'mon ken, I am a serial trader with no intentions of ever staying at a resort I own, but I can appreciate sarcastic humor. Even had the comment been directed at me, I would have gotten a hearty chuckle out of his post.



If it was sarcastic, I'd be with you. Unfortunately, I don't think you interpreted it correctly. I wish you were right.


----------



## holoholo (Sep 25, 2012)

*Sheraton Desert Oasis, Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association*

I would like to provide some clarity on topics related to the SDO board, which is actually called Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association.  

1. In October, the board approved a revised reserves plan to accelerate refurbishment of kitchens and baths to 2013 and 2014. This work will be combined with the work required to bring us into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The current estimate is $17 million. We have $10 million in reserves.  To cover the additional cost, maintenance fees were increased about 7% in 2012 and will increase over the next 2 years as follows: 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there will be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. At this stage, we are obtaining competitive bids for review at our next board meeting October 17.  The project includes all new furniture, upgrade the lock-offs from queen to king beds, replace the 2-person Jacuzzis (we are told its hard to find parts) with standard 1-person Jacuzzis, replace the outdated Space Capsule tub/showers with modern tub/showers, replace the small refrigerators with standard size refrigerators, and much more. I have asked for bids to include options that we can select/deselect regarding the various upgrades to determine the cost impact.  I am also concerned that we are asking current owners to foot the bill for future owners.  This economy caused our delinquency rate to skyrocket and we have about 2,000 association-owned intervals to sell over the next year or two. It might be better to postpone the project until we have more owners to share in the cost.  Our existing owners have been carrying the load of higher maintenance fees caused by delinquencies and it seems unfair to ask them to carry this $17 million load also.  Unfortunately, my fellow board members are happy to move forward with Starwood’s recommendation for this $17 million project right now, with little or no additional discussion.  

2. The demographic profile of the current board is not in alignment with our owner population.  More than half of our owners are local to the Phoenix area, but all board members live out-of-state. All board members are well-to-do and over 50 with no kids at home, I am concerned that we have nobody representing the interests of our younger members with kids seeking economical vacations and economical timeshare ownership. 

3. Late last year, Starwood offered us $400,000 for exclusive rights to our Associations inventory for the next 3 years.   Also, Starwood offered $800 for each interval that the developer (Starwood) picks.  Unfortunately, the association must use that $800 toward the foreclosure costs. The association must continue to pay the maintenance fees until one year after the intervals are sold.  This represents lost revenue of over $5 million over the duration of the contract.  Starwood is NOT obligated to buy any intervals for the 3 year period and has NOTHING at risk.  This inventory represents about 2,000 intervals, and at current Starwood retail prices, exceeds $30 million.  Starwood has the option to get $30 million inventory for only $2 million ($400,000+$800*2,000).  When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer.  

4. At our last board meeting on Thursday, July 12, it was suggested that rental cars be limited to a maximum of a mid-size/intermediate vehicle.  Board member, John Cummins, complained that this was too restrictive for him and he needed to have a full-size car. Starwood told him the policy was only a guide and he could request an exception.

I hope this provides the background and details needed to gain a better understanding of some issues mentioned in this thread regarding SDO and the Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association. 

Regards,
Keith Terry, PMP
President, Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

http://www.linkedin.com/in/keithterry   Salty


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

> I have asked for bids to include options that we can select/deselect regarding the various upgrades to determine the cost impact. I am also concerned that we are asking current owners to foot the bill for future owners.



If you are concerned the SDO board is is asking current owners to pay for improvements that will be used by future owners, has the board (or you) explored the possibility of a loan to be used to fund the portion of the improvements not covered by current reserves? Such a loan might be structured to be repaid over the term of the loan and secured by a promise to pay the loan out of future assessments.  The resort/borrower would have to promise to balance the budget and establish a separate account for monthly payments of a portion of the assessments at the lender's institution.

Or, is the deinquency situation so bad that no bank would approve such an SDO loan because of the MF deficiency rate?

If no bank would approve the loan and the board refuses to halt or delay the renovation, what are the projected or added financial costs to the resort from down-sizing or delaying the renovation?

Has Starwood demanded a renovation as the price of SDO remaining in the SVN? If so, what is your position on going forward with the renovation?  Is the board position a different position?

The terms of the Starwood offer to purchase the foreclosed inventory which is the board's responsibility (and a further economic drain) are indeed steep.  Has the board considered voluntarily leaving the Starwood SVN system and joining another timeshare system or going it alone?

The economy has given SDO (and many other timeshare resorts) a punch in the solar plexus.  You and the rest of the SDO board have some very difficult decisions to make about which way to go for the resort you own.  GLTY.   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 25, 2012)

holoholo said:


> I hope this provides the background and details needed to gain a better understanding of some issues mentioned in this thread regarding SDO and the Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith Terry, PMP
> President, Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association



Thanks for contributing! The background and details of the decisions confronting the HOA and the manner in which decisions are being made is very helpful at understanding the issues confronting the board. I shouldn't be surprised, but am, at the 'deal' Starwood is demanding of the board - as an owner, I see absolutely no reason to agree to it and encourage you to keep up the good fight. Starwood needs to assume some risk or be left out of the deal. And should the board decide it's best for owners to leave Starwood, I wouldn't oppose it (and I bought simply for trading purposes...but it makes no sense to be taken advantage of in such an extreme manner as Starwood is requesting).


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 25, 2012)

Keith, 

Thanks for sharing with us.  

I would like to see the HOA board negotiate with Starwood to sell the fully paid off timeshare that are delinquent on MF either back to Starwood or a restricted market like offering existing owners a "deal" that includes SOs?  Some of the other Starwood timeshares have been sold that way to a restricted market but I do not know if they are through HOA or by Starwood.  I do not know if there is a significant chunk that are delinquent only on MF but fully paid off otherwise.

The current Starwood proposal is a no deal as far as I am concerned as it puts additional burden on the HOA and existing owners.

SP


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 25, 2012)

> 3. Late last year, Starwood offered us $400,000 for exclusive rights to our Associations inventory for the next 3 years. Also, Starwood offered $800 for each interval that the developer (Starwood) picks. Unfortunately, the association must use that $800 toward the foreclosure costs. The association must continue to pay the maintenance fees until one year after the intervals are sold. This represents lost revenue of over $5 million over the duration of the contract. Starwood is NOT obligated to buy any intervals for the 3 year period and has NOTHING at risk. This inventory represents about 2,000 intervals, and at current Starwood retail prices, exceeds $30 million. Starwood has the option to get $30 million inventory for only $2 million ($400,000+$800*2,000). When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer.



Exhibit A of why it's not good policy to have Starwood rubber stampers sitting on the HOA board.  That is a very one-sided proposal.  The HOAs are supposed to represent the OWNERS' interests.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 25, 2012)

Timeshare Associations have only one "asset" and that is the (potential) income from future owner fees. A resort with 2000+ unpaid weeks is an unlikely candidate to be approved by any lender for a large loan.  

The only obvious source would be through Starwood - a deal could and maye should be cut that lets them loan some or all of the additional funds required perhaps in return for the buy back deal already being discussed. The Board needs to be made up of owners wiling to consider how best to fund this nedd and to fairly spread the costs over the useful years of service.


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

It is a nice sentiment to ask the current board to sell off the 2,000 units to existing owners at a reduced price.  Reduced how much?  What would you pay to purchase an SDO unit with a renovation coming up?

Starwood is offering about $2,000,000 or $1,000 per unit to the SDO board.  Would anyone here pay more than that?  If not you, who?

The problem with foreclosing is that, once the units are returned to the resort, the amount of money necessary to run the resort does not decrease.  Until the units are returned to non-association ownership, they make no contribution to the MFs.  The shortfall is not remedied by the association foreclosing its lien for delinquent MFs.

Handing off the units to Starwood is problematic.  Starwood cannot reasonably sell off 2,000 units for $30,000,000 ($15,000 per unit week) until the renovation is completed.  Even after the renovation, it takes time to sell 2,000 unit weeks.  Plus, 2,000 units is only the MF forfeitures.  Starwood has taken back deeds on SDO mortgages, owes MFs to SDO on those units until they are sold off and is experienced in how difficult or easy it is to sell off an SDO unit (or an SBP unit or any other unit that has defaulted back to Starwood). 

And, there it stands.  An aging resort with few amenities and in need of a renovation with 2,000 completely non-paying 2-br units from owners who have been foreclosed on their MFs and a substantial number of owners who have no interest in owning at SDO other than trading elsewhere on low MFs.  The board has difficult decisions to make on how best to solve the problems which exist.  The board members must make wise choices.  

All timeshare boards (to a greater or lesser extent) are coping with similar problems.  SDO is not alone.   Salty


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 25, 2012)

jarta,
I understood the deal differently than you.  My understanding is that they have to offer it to Starwood at $800 per unit first.  If Starwood declines I was not sure if they could try to get it in the hands of a MF's owner some other way or if it just had to sit in HOA inventory (with HOA covering MF's) for the remainder of the 3 year contract.  Even if Starwood takes the unit from the HOA for $800 the HOA would still be responsible for MF's for another year and the $800 had to go toward foreclosing additional non paying units (instead of working with owners for deed in lieu?)

So Starwood is in no way offering $2million for the units.  Realistically I couldn't imagine them taking anything but the true platinum weeks and _maybe_ a few 1-52.

Tracey


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 25, 2012)

holoholo said:


> 3. Late last year, Starwood offered us $400,000 for exclusive rights to our Associations inventory for the next 3 years.   Also, Starwood offered $800 for each interval that the developer (Starwood) picks.  Unfortunately, the association must use that $800 toward the foreclosure costs. The association must continue to pay the maintenance fees until one year after the intervals are sold.  This represents lost revenue of over $5 million over the duration of the contract.  Starwood is NOT obligated to buy any intervals for the 3 year period and has NOTHING at risk.  This inventory represents about 2,000 intervals, and at current Starwood retail prices, exceeds $30 million.  Starwood has the option to get $30 million inventory for only $2 million ($400,000+$800*2,000).  When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer.



With $30 million in inventory as you say, Starwood has a vested interest in getting their hands on it. What they offered you was shrewd.  This should be seen as a negotiation, not a demand. If you were to counter with, say, $750k plus $3,000 per interval plus they assume MFs in the interim may well be rejected by Starwood, but I don't see them simply walking away from the deal when $30 million in revenue (let's even conservatively discount to $20 million in present value terms) is on the table for a significant return.  Though they might threaten and bluff you to try to get you to capitulate (it's just business, not personal), I suspect that they would negotiate ultimately to arrive at a deal that you both could live with.


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

tschwa2 said:


> jarta,
> I understood the deal differently than you.  My understanding is that they have to offer it to Starwood at $800 per unit first.  If Starwood declines I was not sure if they could try to get it in the hands of a MF's owner some other way or if it just had to sit in HOA inventory (with HOA covering MF's) for the remainder of the 3 year contract.  Even if Starwood takes the unit from the HOA for $800 the HOA would still be responsible for MF's for another year and the $800 had to go toward foreclosing additional non paying units (instead of working with owners for deed in lieu?)
> 
> So Starwood is in no way offering $2million for the units.  Realistically I couldn't imagine them taking anything but the true platinum weeks and _maybe_ a few 1-52.
> ...



I was using holoholo's numbers and calculations.  

If all or a substantial number of unit weeks are in mid-summer, I agree with you that the numbers could be substantially lower and the problem even bleaker.  Would you blame Starwood for not wanting to own and pay MFs on a substantial number of mid-summer weeks in Scottsdale until they are sold off?

Right now SDO even more than usual clearly needs board members experienced in business negotiations.  Being a good father (or grandfather) or a good doctor or local or having attended board meetings are not the standards needed in this time of existential threat.  I don't know the players so I cannot comment further about their talents or abilities.  However, I do believe that delaying the renovation would be self-defeating because it will likely lead to a ever-accelerating decline at the resort.  (I guess the good news is the price cannot go down much more.   )

Buy where you want to go in the week (fixed) or season (float) you want to be there.  Nothing else is guaranteed by a timeshare deed.  Salty


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 25, 2012)

jarta said:


> Starwood is offering about $2,000,000 or $1,000 per unit to the SDO board.  Would anyone here pay more than that?  If not you, who?



That is beside the point. If Starwood wants the ability to sell the units at retail pricing, then it is completely reasonable for the board to demand that Starwood pay up for that privilege.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 25, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That is beside the point. If Starwood wants the ability to sell the units at retail pricing, then it is completely reasonable for the board to demand that Starwood pay up for that privilege.



The question I would ask is what would the board do if Starwood's offer were not on the table?

Foreclosure costs would still be incurred. Delinquent fees would continue to accrue.

As hard as it may be to do, the Board should not concern itself with how much Starwood can gain from their offer. Just the options available, absent Starwood's offer. Only in that light can a decision be made that is the best interest of the owners.

Good luck. No easy choices, no pretty outcomes.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 25, 2012)

sptung said:


> Are you serious?  Currently a 1BR SDO consistently pulls a 2BR Westin Maui and Kaui.  I am not sure what more you can ask for.  Continuing to keep SDO in good condition and up to par with the rest of Starwood resort standard is what will keep the trading power up.




Unfortunately I'm not. The 1 bedroom SDO used to consistently pull 2 Bedroom Westin's and 2 bedroom Harborside units. While there are still times you can get Westin Maui and Kaui with a one bedroom SDO it isnt all the time. Also, you can no longer get two bedroom Harborside units with one bedroom SDO. Keep in mind, those were huge uptrades and arent like for like anyway but they were great while they lasted. 

As far as RCI goes, the lowering of trade power is much more transparent. Before Starwood decided to stop owners from choosing the week to deposit with RCI, a high season reservation at SDO would net 38 points for the small side, 39 for the large side for a total of 77. When Starwood stopped allowing exact reservations to be deposited and started using generic deposits, trading power drastically changed. Now each side of the SDO lock off is 21, total 42.  And to discourage the deposit of a two bedroom unit, those are worth only 25.  

I agree, right now trades are still great. However, it can change as Broadway Plantation has. SBP no longer gets trades anything close to what SDO does. This change occurred right after the large fee increases caused huge amounts of units to flood the resale market and the units became worthless and currently you cant give them away.

I dont want to get off topic here, just making a point that you cant count on trading power to remain the same and large fee increases cause more delinquencies which cause fees to go up further.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 25, 2012)

George, if you enter an ongoing search with an actual deposited week at SBP, even the "B" side of the SBP lockoff, exchanges are still stellar.  Denise gave me that advice when I was trying to get something difficult, and it did work.  I entered an ongoing search and received a match within a few hours.  The week has to be officially deposited and an ongoing search set.  Just using a week in your account that isn't deposited will not result in great searching.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 25, 2012)

rickandcindy23 said:


> George, if you enter an ongoing search with an actual deposited week at SBP, even the "B" side of the SBP lockoff, exchanges are still stellar.  Denise gave me that advice when I was trying to get something difficult, and it did work.  I entered an ongoing search and received a match within a few hours.  The week has to be officially deposited and an ongoing search set.  Just using a week in your account that isn't deposited will not result in great searching.



I'm aware of that too, thanks Cindy, but it didnt work for me with resorts that had one bedroom and two bedroom units. I put in an ongoing request for Harborside this Sept and Oct when the units were on the sightings board. I couldnt get anything other than 1 bedroom units with my 1 bedroom unit. Still a great trade, but not what I needed.


----------



## grgs (Sep 25, 2012)

holoholo said:


> I would like to provide some clarity on topics related to the SDO board, which is actually called Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association.
> 
> 1. In October, the board approved a revised reserves plan to accelerate refurbishment of kitchens and baths to 2013 and 2014. This work will be combined with the work required to bring us into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The current estimate is $17 million. We have $10 million in reserves.  To cover the additional cost, maintenance fees were increased about 7% in 2012 and will increase over the next 2 years as follows: 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there will be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. At this stage, we are obtaining competitive bids for review at our next board meeting October 17.



First of all, Keith, thank your for your service on the board and your willingness to post on TUG.

Based on your post above, at this point there does not seem to be any plan for a special assessment.  Of course, when the bids come in at the next meeting in Oct., there will be a better sense if the proposed mf increases will cover the renovations or not. 

I hope you will continue to keep us updated.

Glorian


----------



## grgs (Sep 25, 2012)

Fredm said:


> As hard as it may be to do, the Board should not concern itself with how much Starwood can gain from their offer. Just the options available, absent Starwood's offer. Only in that light can a decision be made that is the best interest of the owners.



I'm inclined to agree with Fred on this.  Definitely, the Board should try to negotiate the best possible deal with Starwood for the owners, but looking at what Starwood _might_ make is irrelevant.  

Glorian


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 25, 2012)

grgs said:


> I'm inclined to agree with Fred on this.  Definitely, the Board should try to negotiate the best possible deal with Starwood for the owners, but looking at what Starwood _might_ make is irrelevant.
> 
> Glorian



It is absolutely relevant to negotiating a deal.  That is a cornerstone of negotiation, knowing what is in it for the other party.  One cannot negotiate effectively without this.  

Now, the larger point that Fred alluded to is one of leverage, which indeed does add a dose of realism--though not fatalism--to negotiations.  I still highly doubt that a "firm" counteroffer by the board would be rebuffed wholesale due to the mutual benefit that could be gained from a deal.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 25, 2012)

grgs said:


> I'm inclined to agree with Fred on this.  Definitely, the Board should try to negotiate the best possible deal with Starwood for the owners, but looking at what Starwood _might_ make is irrelevant.
> 
> Glorian



I disagree. In negotiations, it's always essential to know the value of what you're selling to the purchaser with the goal of making a deal that benefits both parties. A one-sided deal such as this proposal has no risk for Starwood, especially since it permits them to pick which weeks they want to purchase (almost like a ROFR process) and they are able to offer new buyers a free year of MF, paid for by the HOA. This may be reasonable in Starwood's perspective, since they know the HOA cannot easily obtain another bidder for those weeks, but it's just another data point in how Starwood is treating the owners (and another reason to look at buying some HOT ).

ETA: Beefnot and I agree! In that case, you know its time to look twice!


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2012)

I just wanted to add a little more info. -

These are the current board members:

Keith Terry, President (incumbent - posted above)
Penny Haas, Vice President (incumbent)
Joycelyn Ray, Vice President (resigned - her spot is up for election)
Dale Putman, Secretary (incumbent)
John Cummings, Treasurer (His term is up and he is running for re-election)

It is important to note that the Starwood repurchase option is a legally *done deal*. It happened late last year. 

*This is the point - the current board did NOT negotiate with Starwood, or even consider any other options, regarding selling the foreclosed inventory.*

However - *The refurbishment is not a done deal.* The board needs candidates who will demand multiple bids and line-item choices, and not just rubber stamp whatever Starwood puts in front of them.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 25, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> It is important to note that the Starwood repurchase option is a legally *done deal*. It happened late last year.



Oh wow.  Wow. With that bit of fact in mind, when rereading the quote below:




holoholo said:


> 3. Late last year, Starwood offered us $400,000 for exclusive rights to our Associations inventory for the next 3 years.   Also, Starwood offered $800 for each interval that the developer (Starwood) picks.  Unfortunately, the association must use that $800 toward the foreclosure costs. The association must continue to pay the maintenance fees until one year after the intervals are sold.  This represents lost revenue of over $5 million over the duration of the contract.  Starwood is NOT obligated to buy any intervals for the 3 year period and has NOTHING at risk.  This inventory represents about 2,000 intervals, and at current Starwood retail prices, exceeds $30 million.  Starwood has the option to get $30 million inventory for only $2 million ($400,000+$800*2,000).  When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer.



...is it worth considering whether the board has persuasive, effective leadership?  A president can be a great guy with a level-headed perspective, and can be 100% dead-on correct about an issue; however without personal conviction and fortitude to make unpopular decisions and/or influence others, it can all be moot.  When faced with resistance, how does a leader respond?  Do they lobby, debate, filibuster, etc? Do they simply drop the matter?  

I was a jury foreman once in a civil case, and I still regret that I capitulated to 8 out of the other 11 jurors on one aspect of the the judgment so they wouldn't have to spend another day or more in deliberation, even though I knew I was right.  I vowed never again will I be afraid to be unpopular or use whatever pulpit/tool I have available to me to try to influence others to do what I believe is right.

Now, ineffective leadership could be the furthest thing from the truth, but it still may be worth asking the question.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2012)

It's a very good question - but the President's office is not up for election, so it's a good question to ask next year.

Right now, the Vice President and Treasurer positions are open.


----------



## scootr5 (Sep 25, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> ...is it worth considering whether the board has persuasive, effective leadership?  A president can be a great guy with a level-headed perspective, and can be 100% dead-on correct about an issue; however without personal conviction and fortitude to make unpopular decisions and/or influence others, it can all be moot.  When faced with resistance, how does a leader respond?  Do they lobby, debate, filibuster, etc? Do they simply drop the matter?



We don't know the details, but if only 1 of the 5 board members is _for _looking at alternatives it's going to pass when put to a vote.


----------



## grgs (Sep 25, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I disagree. In negotiations, it's always essential to know the value of what you're selling to the purchaser with the goal of making a deal that benefits both parties. A one-sided deal such as this proposal has no risk for Starwood, especially since it permits them to pick which weeks they want to purchase (almost like a ROFR process) and they are able to offer new buyers a free year of MF, paid for by the HOA. This may be reasonable in Starwood's perspective, since they know the HOA cannot easily obtain another bidder for those weeks, but it's just another data point in how Starwood is treating the owners (and another reason to look at buying some HOT ).
> 
> ETA: Beefnot and I agree! In that case, you know its time to look twice!



Ok, good points Ken & Beefnot.  I did have them in my head, but didn't include them in my earlier post.  I agree from a negotiating perspective it is critical to know what Starwood has to gain.  And, it does seem to me that if Starwood is going to resale these weeks they should take ownership and be responsible for the ongoing mf.  From that perspective, it seems the HOA might be able to negotiate something more favorable.  What I don't find particularly important to me is what Starwood sells the weeks for once they take them over.  I'm most interested in relieving the HOA of non-paying weeks.  

Here is an earlier posting about Starwood taking over WMH weeks:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131348

Note that they became responsible for ongoing mf. It does seems one-sided to me if Starwood gets to sell SDO weeks with no obligation to pay mf on the unsold units.  

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2012)

Glorian - The agreement with Starwood to sell the foreclosed inventory is a done deal.  Signed - sealed - delivered.

Right now, the the issue before us is to elect board members who will make effective decisions in the future, especially regarding the refurbishment.


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

Ken,   ...   When you go to trade-in a used car, do you set your price based on what the dealer can resell the car for or at what you can sell the car for?

If you expect to be offered what the dealer can resell for, you will be sorely disappointed by the price the dealer gives you.  You will be lucky to negotiate a price even close to what you can realize if you sold the car yourself.  Most dealers will tell you that if you want more money on the trade-in, go sell the car yourself.  Sometimes that is possible.  But, for 2,000 used cars or 2,000 unrenovated timeshare weeks ......? 

Sure, the Starwood offer was not a generous one.  But, if the Starwood offer had not been accepted, the SDO board would have had to negotiate a listing fee with a broker to list the 2,000 properties.  I think that is what FredM was getting at.  Brokers like FredM may be reasonable people who wait to charge their fees at the closing, but they don't work selling timeshares for free.

Starwood's contract with SDO was only to provide management services for the property.  The contract does not require Starwood to resell units or act as an insurer if the resort gets in trouble financially. (Although Starwood has given money to some SVO resorts where it is still actively selling new weeks.  It was not done for charity.  Undoubtedly, it was done to prop up new sales prices.  Welcome to the real world of business.)  A new, separate contract was necessary.

I don't believe for a moment the existence of a renovation deferred until 2011 at SDO was Starwood's preference or decision.  Deferring maintenance or renovations hardly ever leads to a painless conclusion.  holoholo gave you some of the list.  What part would you decide not to cure (small beds, inadequate refrigerators, Space Capsule tubs and showers, 2-person Pocono "honeymoon" Jacuzzis - even if you could find parts, or the well-worn, tired furniture)?

BTW, board members are elected without positions and, by statute, the new board elects/divvies up the officers jobs among themselves after the election.  Each board must have a designated president, treasurer and secretary.     Salty


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 25, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Glorian - The agreement with Starwood to sell the foreclosed inventory is a done deal.  Signed - sealed - delivered.
> 
> Right now, the the issue before us is to elect board members who will make effective decisions in the future, especially regarding the refurbishment.



...but if the original deal was only for 3 years then it will be over before the 3 year increase in MF's due to the refurbs and will be revisited by at least some of the board members that are coming aboard this year or are already serving.  How the board members would approach this issue and others like it in the future is also relevant in selecting candidates now.


----------



## mikeha (Sep 25, 2012)

I am an owner at SDO and have a stay reserved as well as a deposit to trade. My wish is that SDO will be refurbished to maintain or hopefully enhance it's appeal as both a destination and as a high value trader. There is a lot of rhetoric in this thread regarding the increase of MF's. Even with the additional increases I have seen proposed over the next 2 years (2012 increase is already done) the SDO value is still high relative to other resorts. If a wave of defaults will be triggered by the additional increase of 200 to $250 in yearly MF's over a 2 year period with a 12% decrease the following year how many of these are ready to default anyway. 
My hope is that those who are elected can make good business decisions. My experience has shown me that seldom is a perfect option available in managing any enterprise and good leaders make the best choice given the actual circumstances and options available. 
It is difficult to vote for the board members as I have no information of their actual qualifications to undertake such a role. Age , residence, family and all of the other information I have seen tells me nothing about their ability to make sound business decisions or negotiate.
That said I have cast my vote and will hope for the best. The best in my opinion being that the refurb get done SDO remain a Starwood Resort and the cost remain reasonable for the return.


----------



## grgs (Sep 25, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Glorian - The agreement with Starwood to sell the foreclosed inventory is a done deal.  Signed - sealed - delivered.



Understood, but this is the first concrete example I've seen where perhaps the Board might have negotiated better.  Possibly, the WMH HOA did a bit better job here.  Or possibly not--I dislike second guessing after the fact but will work with whatever info we can get.



DeniseM said:


> Right now, the the issue before us is to elect board members who will make effective decisions in the future, especially regarding the refurbishment.



Yes, but past actions might inform the voting decision.


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

Well if the contract is signed, sealed and delivered, what's happening?  It would be interesting to know how the contract for resale is working out.  Obviously, SDO got $400K upon execution of the contract as an addition to revenue.

After the contract was entered into did Starwood pick any weeks?  If so, how many weeks were picked at $800 per week and, separately, how much additional money did that add to the 2012-2013 revenue after the foreclosure costs were paid?  Was all of the additional revenue placed in the reserve fund (as, IMO, it should have been)?  

How many weeks have actually closed this year?  What procedures have been adopted and what has happened to any weeks Starwood failed to pick or rejected?   Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2012)

tschwa2 said:


> ...but if the original deal was only for 3 years then it will be over before the 3 year increase in MF's due to the refurbs and will be revisited by at least some of the board members that are coming aboard this year or are already serving.  How the board members would approach this issue and others like it in the future is also relevant in selecting candidates now.





grgs said:


> Understood, but this is the first concrete example I've seen where perhaps the Board might have negotiated better.  Possibly, the WMH HOA did a bit better job here.  Or possibly not--I dislike second guessing after the fact but will work with whatever info we can get.
> 
> Yes, but past actions might inform the voting decision.



Absolutely!!!


----------



## levatino (Sep 25, 2012)

I did not get my ballot.  Any idea when they are expected?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2012)

levatino said:


> I did not get my ballot.  Any idea when they are expected?



The [postcards with unique url & password] were mailed by snail mail from AZ on the 19th, so I am guessing yours will take a few more days, but will arrive within the week.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 25, 2012)

Usually you just get a post card telling you to go online to vote your proxy by a certain date.


----------



## levatino (Sep 25, 2012)

Denise,

I have known you to be a knowledgeable and capable advocate of things Starwood and SDO.

As a former SVV owner, I was quite surprised when MFs skyrocketed during my first year of ownership.  Meanwhile, my Hilton and Wyndham fees increased a small amount.

In addition, After watching the debacle known as the SVR refurbishment, and contrasting it to the Hilton Flamingo refurbishment, I lost confidence in much of Starwood as a management entity.

I gladly support your enterprise and proposed candidates.

Paul


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 25, 2012)

Reasonable questions and perspective.



jarta said:


> Ken,   ...   When you go to trade-in a used car, do you set your price based on what the dealer can resell the car for or at what you can sell the car for?



Both. One has everything to do with the other, since the dealer won't buy if they can't make money at it. But, car dealers don't make 1500% profit on trades, either.



> Sure, the Starwood offer was not a generous one.  But, if the Starwood offer had not been accepted, the SDO board would have had to negotiate a listing fee with a broker to list the 2,000 properties.  I think that is what FredM was getting at.  Brokers like FredM may be reasonable people who wait to charge their fees at the closing, but they don't work selling timeshares for free.



There are always options. Do you know if the HOA even attempted to research and consider alternatives? If not, why would that be acceptable to you? I want my HOA to consider all options before making decisions. If the Starwood proposal was the only option on the table, then we were poorly served. I don't agree that the only options available were Starwood or listing 2,000 properties separately.



> I don't believe for a moment the existence of a renovation deferred until 2011 at SDO was Starwood's preference or decision.  Deferring maintenance or renovations hardly ever leads to a painless conclusion.  holoholo gave you some of the list.  What part would you decide not to cure (small beds, inadequate refrigerators, Space Capsule tubs and showers, 2-person Pocono "honeymoon" Jacuzzis - even if you could find parts, or the well-worn, tired furniture)?



It certainly sounds like SDO needs a renovation. I've served on residential HOA boards and I know first hand the issues surrounding timing on special assessments, upgrades, etc. It's never a fun process, but in my opinion the communication from all the Starwood HOA's needs to be better. The details on this thread are more than I've heard from the resort directly, and frankly I expect even more.


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

Ken,   ...   We disagree about this:



> There are always options. Do you know if the HOA even attempted to research and consider alternatives? If not, why would that be acceptable to you? I want my HOA to consider all options before making decisions.



Like closing up shop, dissolving and selling SDO for the not insubstantial land value?  I'm pretty sure that if any good alternatives came to mind, the board would have pursued them.  I can't think of any brokers or banks who would pay $400K up front for the opportunity to sell 2,000 timeshare weeks into ebay pricing of $100-$300 per good week at a resort badly in need of renovation. 

I'd like to hear your opinion of what other alternatives could possibly be out there that would bring SDO more than $400K as a front-end payment and a possibility of up to $2M in revenue over the next three years.  You say the alternatives are out there to get 2,000 units back to paying MFs in the middle of a much needed renovation.

Name a couple.   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 25, 2012)

jarta said:


> I'm pretty sure that if any good alternatives came to mind, the board would have pursued them.



I don't have the confidence in the board that you do. And, I don't have the confidence that Starwood, our management company, would present competing options to their own. Why would you think otherwise?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 25, 2012)

Ken - No other options were considered or presented to the board.


----------



## YYJMSP (Sep 25, 2012)

holoholo said:


> To cover the additional cost, maintenance fees were increased about 7% in 2012 and will increase over the next 2 years as follows: 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there will be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees.



So that would mean (using the known values for 2011 and 2012):

2011 -- ~$910
2012 -- ~$985
2013 -- ~$1105
2014 -- ~$1190
2015 -- ~$1050

Leaving each unit paying an additional ~$690 over the 4 years?

Definitely a far cry from the double or triple that amount paid by SVR owners for their refurbishment...


----------



## jarta (Sep 25, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I don't have the confidence in the board that you do. And, I don't have the confidence that Starwood, our management company, would present competing options to their own. Why would you think otherwise?





> If the Starwood proposal was the only option on the table, then we were poorly served. I don't agree that the only options available were Starwood or listing 2,000 properties separately.



There aren't that many people standing out on Hayden Road waving a down payment of $400K (or $200 per week) to get the opportunity to sell 2,000 weeks of timeshare units which sell on ebay for $100-$300 (for a good week with often the seller paying closing costs and delinquent MFs) and then come up with another $800 dollars for each week sold for the SDO board.

You still won't/can't name any options that should have been pursued.  I guess you have no examples to back up your claim that those alternative options do exist.  Come to think of it, no options that should have been pursued were cited by the out-voted SDO president either.

BTW, in negotiations concerning business dealings outside the scope of the management contract, I do not believe Starwood has an obligation to solicit and present offers that compete with its offer.  That's the board's job.  But there is absolutely nothing to show there would have been any competing offers.  Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet, accept what you have been offered and sign on the dotted line.    Salty


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 25, 2012)

jarta said:


> There aren't that many people standing out on Hayden Road waving a down payment of $400K (or $200 per week) to get the opportunity to sell 2,000 weeks of timeshare units which sell on ebay for $100-$300 (for a good week with often the seller paying closing costs and delinquent MFs) and then come up with another $800 dollars for each week sold for the SDO board.
> 
> You still won't/can't name any options that should have been pursued.  I guess you have no examples to back up your claim that those alternative options do exist.  Come to think of it, no options that should have been pursued were cited by the out-voted SDO president either.
> 
> BTW, in negotiations concerning business dealings outside the scope of the management contract, I do not believe Starwood has an obligation to solicit and present offers that compete with its offer.  That's the board's job.  But there is absolutely nothing to show there would have been any competing offers.  Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet, accept what you have been offered and sign on the dotted line.    Salty



Just when I thought we had a real life breathing prophet on our hands, he had to keep talking. <sigh>. 

One option they could have pursued was hold out for more money. Not just take the first offer thrown at them.  It is called nee-goh-shee-ay-shun, jarta.  Starwood wanted the opportunity to sell those units just as much as the board wanted to get them performing again.  And Starwood likely would have paid more given the fat profit margins they were looking at. What, you think they ran the numbers and made their best and final offer?  What business does that?  

And did the board even so much as venture to negotiate? Doesn't sound like it. They grabbed ankles by accepting that offer because perhaps they focused solely on their stakes without evaluating the stakes of their negotiating partner, which is a cardinal sin of negotiation.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm not sure I am understanding this correctly, but if the HOA had 2,000 foreclosed units that it currently "owns", I don't understand why they would not offer to existing owners to opportunity to adopt another week for say $1000 for gold plus 2 br weeks, $2000 for platinum ? I would bet, as with most timeshare owners, that they don't know what the value of their timeshare is and would see this as a deal compared to what they paid originally and might agree to taking another one on. The initial revenue would be good for the HOA but they would also have a new owner taking care of the ongoing MF.

In terms of owners yet to be foreclosed on, send them a letter asking them if the HOA could connect them with a new owner, would they sign over the deed ? Maybe offer to do this for $1000 to relieve them of all obligation in the first offer and if they don't bite, say to them either sign it over to a new owner for nothing or we will foreclose and it will affect your credit. I would think many would jump at the opportunity for a way out. The new owner would pay a $1000-2000 fee as above to transfer it to them. 

I would think this could be a much more economical method of decreasing the number of deliquencies than foreclosing on a unit. 

Units that don't have a new home, could be offered on TUG marketplace for example. 

Would this not have been a better solution than agreeing to Starwood's offer ? Is there something I am missing maybe ???


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 26, 2012)

Quadmaniac said:


> I'm not sure I am understanding this correctly, but if the HOA had 2,000 foreclosed units that it currently "owns", I don't understand why they would not offer to existing owners to opportunity to adopt another week for say $1000 for gold plus 2 br weeks, $2000 for platinum ? I would bet, as with most timeshare owners, that they don't know what the value of their timeshare is and would see this as a deal compared to what they paid originally and might agree to taking another one on. The initial revenue would be good for the HOA but they would also have a new owner taking care of the ongoing MF.
> 
> In terms of owners yet to be foreclosed on, send them a letter asking them if the HOA could connect them with a new owner, would they sign over the deed ? Maybe offer to do this for $1000 to relieve them of all obligation in the first offer and if they don't bite, say to them either sign it over to a new owner for nothing or we will foreclose and it will affect your credit. I would think many would jump at the opportunity for a way out. The new owner would pay a $1000-2000 fee as above to transfer it to them.
> 
> ...



I guess it's not hard to find options after all. I like out of the box thinking and creative solutions. There's just no reason why the HOA should just accept Starwood as the only game in town for selling these weeks.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Sep 26, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I guess it's not hard to find options after all. I like out of the box thinking and creative solutions. There's just no reason why the HOA should just accept Starwood as the only game in town for selling these weeks.



Nope it's not that hard and I would think that there would be even better ones if we put our thinking caps on. Just a theory...


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

> One option they could have pursued was hold out for more money. Not just take the first offer thrown at them. It is called nee-goh-shee-ay-shun, jarta. Starwood wanted the opportunity to sell those units just as much as the board wanted to get them performing again. And Starwood likely would have paid more given the fat profit margins they were looking at. What, you think they ran the numbers and made their best and final offer? What business does that?





> When I suggested we seek alternative proposals, my fellow board members told me not to upset Starwood by seeking competitive proposals because they might withdraw their offer.



You can spin it any way you want, but the complaint was about not seeking competitive proposals elsewhere.  The complaint was about the board not trying to negotiate a better price with an alternative funding source, not about never trying to get Starwood's bid up.  There is no suggestion the board didn't try to get Starwood's bid up.

However, there is a suggestion that the SDO president thought a better price could have been obtained by going elsewhere.  But, he doesn't say where.

My question (directed to Ken who thinks the SDO president was right) was: what outside alternative source would have produced a better price under the circumstances?  Apparently, the rest of the board members agreed that the Starwood price was the best they could get.

I'm still waiting to hear who (or, if not who, at least what type of white knight) should have been approached to obtain more money for SDO than $200 per week upfront and $800 per sale completed for the opportunity to make a killing on resales at SDO by selling them at more than $1,000 per week.  

The deal is hard-nosed, but no better deal could possibly have been found by SDO looking elsewhere.  How much more than $1,000 per week do you think resale weeks at voluntary SDO are selling for?  How much more than $1,000 per week would anyone here pay for a resale week without StarOptions?  Reality price check, anyone?

Another reality check:  I see little evidence anywhere that Starwood is content to let a sub-par resort like SDO continue to use the Starwood name and relationship as a prop to stay afloat.  As a practical matter, SDO may be gone from being under the SVO umbrella in 3 years - or less.   Some may cheer then about SDO (like VCC) finally being free; some will not.   Salty


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> BTW, in negotiations concerning business dealings outside the scope of the management contract, I do not believe Starwood has an obligation to solicit and present offers that compete with its offer.  That's the board's job.  But there is absolutely nothing to show there would have been any competing offers.  Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet, accept what you have been offered and sign on the dotted line.    Salty



Ah, there is one of many identifiable problems with Developer as Management. It IS the Managements job - not the Boards - to amass and present ALL options. The Board is to review them all and make the best choice or ask for more/more details.  Inherently the conflict with their own best interests causes a Developer based management to ignore, downplay or soft sell all but their own great idea!  

That's a big reason I prefer an independent Management or at the very least an Owner Controlled Board. With the latter you have to hope the unpaid members of that Board are willing to take on the extra duties - that Management is already paid dearly for - of locating and negotiating other potential offers then fighting their own Management as the champions of perhaps better options. Hardly seems fair - but that is the reality of a Developer based Management contract. Stay away from them as a buyer - if you own one do all you can to make your Board Independent if you want value.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I guess it's not hard to find options after all. I like out of the box thinking and creative solutions. There's just no reason why the HOA should just accept Starwood as the only game in town for selling these weeks.



And if the Developer offer IS the best then hold their feet to the fire. Don't simply take whatever they offered without at a minimum attempting to get better terms FOR THE OWNERS - they, not Starwood or whatever group it may be, are who the Board is supposed to represent. You need independent thinkers on the Board.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> You can spin it any way you want, but the complaint was about not seeking competitive proposals elsewhere.  The complaint was about the board not trying to negotiate a better price with an alternative funding source, not about never trying to get Starwood's bid up.  There is no suggestion the board didn't try to get Starwood's bid up.



That is, unless you did not read or do not believe Denise's comment to the contrary:



DeniseM said:


> *This is the point - the current board did NOT negotiate with Starwood, or even consider any other options, regarding selling the foreclosed inventory.*






jarta said:


> Apparently, the rest of the board members agreed that the Starwood price was the best they could get.



And so what is your point? Or do you fail to understand the reason this thread was started?



jarta said:


> I'm still waiting to hear who (or, if not who, at least what type of white knight) should have been approached to obtain more money for SDO than $200 per week upfront and $800 per sale completed for the opportunity to make a killing on resales at SDO by selling them at more than $1,000 per week.
> 
> The deal is hard-nosed, but no better deal could possibly have been found by SDO looking elsewhere.  How much more than $1,000 per week do you think resale weeks at voluntary SDO are selling for?  How much more than $1,000 per week would anyone here pay for a resale week without StarOptions?  Reality price check, anyone?
> 
> Another reality check:  I see little evidence anywhere that Starwood is content to let a sub-par resort like SDO continue to use the Starwood name and relationship as a prop to stay afloat.  As a practical matter, SDO may be gone from being under the SVO umbrella in 3 years - or less.   Some may cheer then about SDO (like VCC) finally being free; some will not.   Salty



Just because you assert something does not make it true. There is no basis for your assertions [deleted]


----------



## LisaRex (Sep 26, 2012)

This is an example of _negotiation_: 

Starwood: "We'll offer you $400,000 for exclusive rights plus $800 per week."

HOA: "We counter-offer $425,00 for exclusive rights plus $1000 per week, plus you pay half of closing costs." 

Starwood: "We counter at $425,000 for exclusive rights, plus $1000 per week, and we pay no closing costs."

HOA: "Okay."

This is an example of _rubber stamping_:

Starwood: "We'll offer you $400,000 for exclusive rights plus $800 per week."

HOA: "Okay.  I'd like the board to pay for my upgrade to a full-size car."


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

> It IS the Managements job - not the Boards - to amass and present ALL options.



timeos,   ...   You might be right in a very technical, but very impractical, sense.  However, I do not think it would be ethical, once Starwood submits a bid for sales (not management), for Starwood to search out and be the clearing house for competing bids.  Those bids would be subject to a claim that Starwood did not look long enough or hard enough.

You could also argue that Starwood should not have bid on the block of 2,000 weeks.  But, if not Starwood, who would have bid?  And, at what price?

All this is rather hypothetical until you or someone else explains how there would be any competing bids that could be more advantageous to SDO.  Do you know any brokers who would pay $400K upfront for the opportunity to sell a block of 2,000 weeks at your resort ($200 per week) and another $800 at closing for each week that sells if your good weeks were selling at $100-$300 on ebay and your resort would be undergoing a "massive" renovation (your word used in a prior post about the SDO renovation - and DeniseM says you have stayed at SDO so you know the situation). 



> Denise has the right view. It is not that the existing Board hasn't managed to hold fees down - they obviously have as it is the lowest in the system. But lowest doesn't mean, and in fact may identify, a resort that has been "used up" and living off past investments rather than keeping things in top shape and up to date.
> 
> Renovations as *massive* as this resort needs do not occur overnight. Usually they need to be done in three or more rounds of work to blocks of units. It takes planning and the knowledge that the money will be available when required.



If your resort was in that situation and received the same offer from a broker, what would you do as a fiduciary at your resort?  Keep looking or snap it up?

How much revenue does it net your resort to get a foreclosed week back into an MF-paying position?  Does your resort get $200 prior to listing and another $800 at closing from each week offered for sale?   Salty


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That is, unless you did not read or do not believe Denise's comment to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.  When it comes to Starwood, I take what DeniseM says with a grain of salt.

2.  The purpose of this thread has always been to get Baron and Lee elected - mainly by taking advantage of SDO board disagreements.

3.  Despite your personal attack, there is lots of evidence that the Starwood offer is tough (times are tough) but beyond any other offer that could possibly have been out there.  1 member wanted to look for other offers that the numbers couldn't support.  4 members didn't want to look further.  It's the same as for the infamous rental car.  1 member wanted an allowance for a larger car.  4 members blew him off.  He knew he would not have anyone on his side to second a motion.  It's how boards normally function.   Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 26, 2012)

Folks - let's stay on topic here and attack the issues and not other posters.

And yes, the point of this thread IS to get Barron and Lee elected - the current board simply rubber stamps what Starwood puts in front of them.  With a large refurbishment project looming - we need independent thinkers who will look at all the options.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 26, 2012)

My problem with the "exclusive" deal is the HOA is locking themselves into paying about $6 million in MF's for the HOA inventory for 2000+ units over 3 years and giving up any control for $400,000.  If the HOA had repeatedly tried to sell and/or give away the inventory and this truly is only silver weeks that they would probably be on the hook for no matter what they tried it might be an ok deal.  If Starwood wants "exclusive" rights they should be on the hook for the MF's right away or have non-exclusive rights and be on the hook right away once a unit is sold.   Now not only are they not responsible for MF's, and now obligation to market or sell anything,  they get an extra year even if  they sell a unit.  So the $800 doesn't even cover the MF's that the HOA would still be obligated to cover for a year after the sale.  Potentially Starwood could sell a unit in June of 2013.  The MF's for 2013 were already paid and the HOA would also be obligated to pay the 2014 MF's when they come due in Jan 2014.  

Can the HOA rent out the unsold inventory to help cover some of the expenses or does Starwood's exclusive right to the inventory also mean it gets the use of the intervals during that time? On the surface its just a really bad deal.  But its the kind of deal developers often make.  At least they aren't getting the votes associated with the 2000's units.  Voted as a block, while most owners don't bother to vote they could use it to gain almost complete control.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> timeos,   ...   You might be right in a very technical, but very impractical, sense.  However, I do not think it would be ethical, once Starwood submits a bid for sales (not management), for Starwood to search out and be the clearing house for competing bids.  Those bids would be subject to a claim that Starwood did not look long enough or hard enough.
> 
> You could also argue that Starwood should not have bid on the block of 2,000 weeks.  But, if not Starwood, who would have bid?  And, at what price?
> 
> ...



Do you have Quadmaniac or Lisarex on ignore? Do you not understand what negotiation means? Do you read every fourth word of timeos2's and ken555's posts? You persistently and triumphantly pose questions that have already been addressed in several ways, shapes, and forms.


----------



## djyamyam (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> You could also argue that Starwood should not have bid on the block of 2,000 weeks.  But, if not Starwood, who would have bid?  And, at what price?



You are correct in asserting there are very few, if any, brokers that would offer upfront money.  However, you've got fairly limited thinking on this aspect as you've locked on one mode and that's it.  So to answer your question:

There are always other recognizable name brands out there that are looking for a deal:  Club Intrawest, Diamond, VI come to mind and are active RIGHT NOW.  For example, Aviawest is a developer in Western Canada/NW Washington that went into bankruptcy and a few - CI and VI - made offers to pickup stuff.  Being on a board of a one of our resorts that went through some challenges of repossesed inventory, I can say we got overtures from a number of companies.  You just need to put the word out there.  

I don't disagree that the Starwood offer was a tough one and whether the SDO board would have received anything substantially better was questionable, based on our own experience.  Probably could have gotten more but how much?  Most of these companies want something for nothing because they know the HOA has limited leverage.  So all those comments about, the SDO board didn't do a good enough job negotiating, unless you've been involved in something like that, it's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.


Not knowing anything about this board and what happens in their meetings, I would say the average board member has very little understanding/awareness of other TS organizations out there and even how to contact them to see if they would be interested picking up inventory/making bids, etc.  Those that have exposure to TUG and other TS bulletin boards out there have much more access to this type of information.  So that is much more of a minority.

I own at SDO and both use and exchange my units so I have a vested interested in having properly elected knowledgeable board members.  At this point, I don't have enough info to make a truly informed opinion about who to vote for.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 26, 2012)

djyamyam said:


> Y
> Not knowing anything about this board and what happens in their meetings,



Did you read the post from the board president in this thread? - it's very enlightening.


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

> There are always other recognizable name brands out there that are looking for a deal: Club Intrawest, Diamond, VI come to mind and are active RIGHT NOW. For example, Aviawest is a developer in Western Canada/NW Washington that went into bankruptcy and a few - CI and VI - made offers to pickup stuff. Being on a board of a one of our resorts that went through some challenges of repossesed inventory, I can say we got overtures from a number of companies. You just need to put the word out there.
> 
> I don't disagree that the Starwood offer was a tough one and whether the SDO board would have received anything substantially better was questionable, based on our own experience. Probably could have gotten more but how much? Most of these companies want something for nothing because they know the HOA has limited leverage. So all those comments about, the SDO board didn't do a good enough job negotiating, unless you've been involved in something like that, it's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.



dj,   ...   Your post is the first one that identifies how maybe another seller of the units could be found (although you admit probably not with much of an increase in revenue to the resort).  Being on a homeowner board (any homeowner board) in this economy is not a simple task.

Your option involves making a decision to leave Starwood and go elsewhere with some other brand looking for a deal:  "Club Intrawest, Diamond, VI come to mind."

I don't think that type of board decision is one that would have been acceptable to the overwhelming majority SDO owner/users or owner/traders.  Maybe I am wrong about that, but I don't think so.

Any other ideas out there about of how the SDO board would have gotten a better financial deal by looking around?   Salty


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 26, 2012)

One resort where I own a week,  sold a block of 200 mostly blue units to Bluegreen a few years back.  It's not about being a big moneymaker in the short term it is about getting units back into MF paying hands.  You become an "affiliate resort with limited availability" to the new system but only those weeks become part of the other system.   You certainly aren't looking to be swallowed by another developer.  I'm not sure that would work with a Starwood managed resort and with float weeks but it certainly could be something that the board could investigate.


----------



## PamMo (Sep 26, 2012)

djyamyam said:


> ...There are always other recognizable name brands out there that are looking for a deal:  Club Intrawest, Diamond, VI come to mind and are active RIGHT NOW...



Yes, other management groups are trolling for deals right now - but it's all about the bottom line. Diamond might be interested in SDO, but if owners don't like how Starwood treats them, they would be appalled with Diamond management. Their track record is buying up resorts, jumping MF's up to 50%, large special assessments, Club Fees, etc. We've been looking at buying SDO for trading, but solely for the Starwood preference in II.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 26, 2012)

djyamyam said:


> So all those comments about, the SDO board didn't do a good enough job negotiating, unless you've been involved in something like that, it's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.



The crux of that issue was not that the board didn't do a good enough job negotiating, but that the didn't negotiate at all.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> timeos,   ...   You might be right in a very technical, but very impractical, sense.  However, I do not think it would be ethical, once Starwood submits a bid for sales (not management), for Starwood to search out and be the clearing house for competing bids.  Those bids would be subject to a claim that Starwood did not look long enough or hard enough.
> 
> You could also argue that Starwood should not have bid on the block of 2,000 weeks.  But, if not Starwood, who would have bid?  And, at what price?
> 
> ...



Even better. We negotiated with our independent management as well as the developer and other outside groups and ended up with the best deal. It meant that all ownerships that faced foreclosure would be assigned to the winning bidder. They would pay for all costs on return for the title which they would be able to use or sell but would pay the fees on. The Association is kept whole, all fees are paid and foreclosed weeks have a new owner at no cost to the owners. 

Think that's better? I do and I'll bet most owners would too. Oh, by the way, they also cleaned up over 700 weeks without clear title status n/c. Where did they come from? Lax to non-existent foreclosures by our old management - developer - who was too busy selling to earn their $1 million plus annual management fees. They claimed that their plan to buy weeks "as needed" (by them of course) for $700 AFTER the HOA paid to foreclosure at $1000+ was a great deal. Best we could do. 

We removed them, cut management fee to $350,000 and got the deal for foreclosures above. They remained as on site sales & club affiliated with us. So what was really the best deal & who provided it? Not the developer or its captive management. Yes, our independent management found the offers for us. They earned their much lower fee, no?


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 26, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> Even better. We negotiated with our independent management as well as the developer and other outside groups and ended up with the best deal. It meant that all ownerships that faced foreclosure would be assigned to the winning bidder. They would pay for all costs on return for the title which they would be able to use or sell but would pay the fees on. The Association is kept whole, all fees are paid and foreclosed weeks have a new owner at no cost to the owners.
> 
> Think that's better? I do and I'll bet most owners would too. Oh, by the way, they also cleaned up over 700 weeks without clear title status n/c. Where did they come from? Lax to non-existent foreclosures by our old management - developer - who was too busy selling to earn their $1 million plus annual management fees. They claimed that their plan to buy weeks "as needed" (by them of course) for $700 AFTER the HOA paid to foreclosure at $1000+ was a great deal. Best we could do.
> 
> We removed them, cut management fee to $350,000 and got the deal for foreclosures above. They remained as on site sales & club affiliated with us. So what was really the best deal & who provided it? Not the developer or its captive management. Yes, our independent management found the offers for us. They earned their much lower fee, no?



A new, true prophet has emerged in this thread.  Preach brother.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 26, 2012)

I have added an "exit poll" to the top of this thread - please don't vote if you aren't an SDO owner.  If you aren't an owner, I will remove your vote.

If you own multiple weeks, and get to vote multiple times, please let me know and I can add those votes to the poll for you.  (Go ahead and vote, and then let me know how many votes to add in this thread for transparency.)


----------



## Renny30 (Sep 26, 2012)

MY SDO transfer is complete and I just registered on Starcentral. Not likely I'll get a card to vote at this point. I'd like to add my 2 cents. Any ideas on who I contact?



Never mind - I sent an email to the HOA through Starcentral. Thanks.


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

timeos,   ...   Actually, what you post is just a lot of words to promote independent management.  I am glad your resort is happy with the additional burdens on the board and perceived overall financial benefits.

What you are advocating is go it alone - rather than being in any chain.  OK, I get what you are saying.  However, this thread is not about leaving Stawood. (Or is it?)

As for your system of disposing/dumping of the timeshare weeks, it appears that the lien for the delinquent MFs is assigned with a waiver by the resort of repayment of any outstanding MF delinquencies.  Then, the assignee is free to prosecute the foreclosure (hopefully quickly using the administrative process) and the clock starts ticking on any new MF liability for the assignee or the assignee can quickly dump the property on ebay for what it could bring ($1?).  A lot of that happens these days.  The only persons making any money are the closing companies.  If you dig deep enough you will find out the (mainly unlicensed and unbonded) closing companies are actually an arm of the assignee.



> It meant that all ownerships that faced foreclosure would be assigned to the winning bidder. They would pay for all costs on return for the title which they would be able to use or sell but would pay the fees on. The Association is kept whole, all fees are paid and foreclosed weeks have a new owner at no cost to the owners.



Seems like a formula for disaster due to repeated foreclosures because there is no control over the financial stability of the ultimate owner.

But, it begs the question - how much revenue does it produce for the resort?  I can't imagine anyone bids very much to be assigned the right to absorb the costs of foreclosing and reselling.  Closing costs are usually no more than $300.   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 26, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> Even better. We negotiated with our independent management as well as the developer and other outside groups and ended up with the best deal. It meant that all ownerships that faced foreclosure would be assigned to the winning bidder. They would pay for all costs on return for the title which they would be able to use or sell but would pay the fees on. The Association is kept whole, all fees are paid and foreclosed weeks have a new owner at no cost to the owners.
> 
> Think that's better? I do and I'll bet most owners would too. Oh, by the way, they also cleaned up over 700 weeks without clear title status n/c. Where did they come from? Lax to non-existent foreclosures by our old management - developer - who was too busy selling to earn their $1 million plus annual management fees. They claimed that their plan to buy weeks "as needed" (by them of course) for $700 AFTER the HOA paid to foreclosure at $1000+ was a great deal. Best we could do.
> 
> We removed them, cut management fee to $350,000 and got the deal for foreclosures above. They remained as on site sales & club affiliated with us. So what was really the best deal & who provided it? Not the developer or its captive management. Yes, our independent management found the offers for us. They earned their much lower fee, no?



This is exactly the type of leadership all of our HOA's should have.


----------



## Ken555 (Sep 26, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> The crux of that issue was not that the board didn't do a good enough job negotiating, but that the didn't negotiate at all.



Exactly. Thanks for bringing us back onto the main issue. Why didn't the board negotiate? Or, if it did, why isn't that info public? We should be reassured that our board works for us, but the results at the moment make me conclude otherwise. Any sweetheart deal for Starwood at a SVN resort should be immediately suspect. Perhaps our HOA's need an independent firm separate from management to handle the foreclosure and resale process. IMO, it really doesn't matter if they give away the weeks for free (though it would be nice to recoup the foreclosure costs) as long as they get paying owners ASAP. Asking the HOA to pay for another year of MF after sale by Starwood is like rubbing salt in an open wound.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> timeos,   ...   Actually, what you post is just a lot of words to promote independent management.  I am glad your resort is happy with the additional burdens on the board and perceived overall financial benefits.
> 
> What you are advocating is go it alone - rather than being in any chain.  OK, I get what you are saying.  However, this thread is not about leaving Stawood. (Or is it?)
> 
> ...




As originally posted we retained our name brand affiliation just with an independent management. Overall it worked well. 

Revenue? We get 95 to 97% of fees paid. Plus rentals on those that aren't. What more can we ask. By contract all foreclosures are handled within 12 months (court delays excluded). 

Yes, I'm a strong believer in independent resorts but if you want the cache of a name brand at least have an independent HOA Board watching over it. Your money is at great risk if you don't.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 26, 2012)

Renny30 said:


> MY SDO transfer is complete and I just registered on Starcentral. Not likely I'll get a card to vote at this point. I'd like to add my 2 cents. Any ideas on who I contact?



The election doesn't end for about (20?) days, so you may be able to get a card.  I will look at mine and see if there is a number to call.


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

timeos,   ...   The question is not what percentage of MFs are paid each year.  95-97% payment is fairly normal these days but not all that great.  

Anyway, competent management requires that some shortfall be anticipated/estimated in any budget as an expense and the cost shifted to the anticipated payments of MFs by all owners.  If you anticipate 97% collections and only 95% comes in you will run a loss for the year unless you overestimated other expenses during the year.

My question was how much revenue per lien assigned is generated by the bidding process where your resort waives repayment of the delinquency in return for the assignment?  You didn't respond to that one.



> By contract all foreclosures are handled within 12 months (court delays excluded).



Gee!  There is a clause in the assignment documents that recognizes the assignee can get delayed if the foreclosure is changed by the delinquent from an administrative proceeding to a judicial proceeding.  Of course, such a clause is for the benefit of the assignee, not the resort, and is necessary to protect the assignee so the MFs don't continue to run if the administrative foreclosure process unexpectedly changes to a judicial process and vesting of the good title is also delayed.  How can you dump on ebay until you actually have good title?   Salty


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> timeos,   ...   The question is not what percentage of MFs are paid each year.  95-97% payment is fairly normal these days but not all that great.
> 
> Anyway, competent management requires that some shortfall be anticipated/estimated in any budget as an expense and the cost shifted to the anticipated payments of MFs by all owners.  If you anticipate 97% collections and only 95% comes in you will run a loss for the year unless you overestimated other expenses during the year.
> 
> ...



95%+ is normal? The ARDA report & others wouldn't agree I'm afraid. In 2013 we budgeted 93% collections and corresponding bad debt so there little chance of missing budget there. We get no income on foreclosures except the no cost fee & then the annual fee. That amounts to tens of thousands in value each year. We do get $700 if we pay for foreclosure & then sell it back but since that would cost us money - foreclosure is more than $700 - so why do that? 

The contract says they will use the best method - non judicial or traditional - and do it within 12 months. It averages 7 months or less. What is your issue with that? 

You seem to want to defend an "all in one" developer /management /HOA control. How could you possibly think that is a benefit to anyone but the Developer?


----------



## K2Quick (Sep 26, 2012)

Who has voting rights on the 2,000 units that Starwood has exclusive rights to sell?  If it's Starwood or the HOA board, this proxy battle is a complete waste of time.


----------



## tahoeJoe (Sep 26, 2012)

*No ballot yet*

I have not received my ballot yet. Any idea when they will be, or were, mailed out? If I don't receive one can I request another ballot?


----------



## klpca (Sep 26, 2012)

tahoeJoe said:


> I have not received my ballot yet. Any idea when they will be, or were, mailed out? If I don't receive one can I request another ballot?



We are new owners (since June) and our post card came in yesterday's mail. We're in California.


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

K2Quick said:


> Who has voting rights on the 2,000 units that Starwood has exclusive rights to sell?  If it's Starwood or the HOA board, this proxy battle is a complete waste of time.



The SDO association owns the 2,000 unit weeks (excepting the ones Starwood may have sold off in the last year).  The SDO board has statutory authority to vote them as the current board members see fit.  Are we safe to add 2,000 votes for Cummings and Healy to the TUG poll results?    Salty


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> 95%+ is normal? The ARDA report & others wouldn't agree I'm afraid. In 2013 we budgeted 93% collections and corresponding bad debt so there little chance of missing budget there. We get no income on foreclosures except the no cost fee & then the annual fee. That amounts to tens of thousands in value each year. We do get $700 if we pay for foreclosure & then sell it back but since that would cost us money - foreclosure is more than $700 - so why do that?
> 
> The contract says they will use the best method - non judicial or traditional - and do it within 12 months. It averages 7 months or less. What is your issue with that?
> 
> You seem to want to defend an "all in one" developer /management /HOA control. How could you possibly think that is a benefit to anyone but the Developer?



So for 2013 you are going to shift a 7% loss of the MFs to other owners when your admitted recent historical loss rate is 3-5%.  Pretty neat!  Will you highlight that at the annual meeting?

I am not defending anything other than the SDO board accepting a deal for $400K up front ($200 per week) and an additional $800 per week sold.

I guess you just won't say in plain language how much you get from the auction of the lien.  The post above is an explanation of the costs if the resort did the foreclosures itself.  But you did throw in the fact that there is no revenue.  

I guess if your resort would only get $700 if it did the auction itself and would lose money because foreclosure costs more than $700.  That means that means there's little to no revenue generated by the auction of the lien when you don't do it because the assignee is assuming a $700+ cost at the start of things.  It's nearly a gift to the assignee and with the understanding the current MF delinquencies are waived but $700+ foreclosure cost and the upcoming MFs are the assignee's problem - unless the foreclosure turns into a judicial proceeding.  Please correct me if I'm reading your post wrong.

And, please let me know how SDO got skinned again by accepting $400K up front.   Salty


----------



## curiousguest (Sep 26, 2012)

I am starting to think, as someone else stated, that Jarta is very pro-Starwood.  This would not have something to do with him having the same last name as this Starwood employee? Pure coincidence?

http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1782035497&targetid=profile


----------



## DavidnRobin (Sep 26, 2012)

curiousguest said:


> I am starting to think, as someone else stated, that Jarta is very pro-Starwood.  This would not have something to do with him having the same last name as this Starwood employee? Pure coincidence?
> 
> http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1782035497&targetid=profile



I know for a fact he is not - and his opinions are very valid (for the most part) - especially in the topic being discussed here.  I just wrote a post based on this thread and a topic he was willing to make a stand on (as normal).  {Realizing that DM very clearly stated that this thread was about her support of 2 particular people in the upcoming election to give transparency and good decision-making processes - hopefully - which I support...}

His technique has a lot to be desired - and I think he would agree with this, and doesn't care as he knows he is a direct and lacks empathy when it comes to these issues.

but perhaps I am a SVO shill as well...


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2012)

jarta said:


> So for 2013 you are going to shift a 7% loss of the MFs to other owners when your admitted recent historical loss rate is 3-5%.  Pretty neat!  Will you highlight that at the annual meeting?



We most certainly do! It's called "surplus to budget" and it goes directly to the next years fees. Compare that to the bad debt carried over from year that many resorts have (including ours when the Developer had control. We were technically broke in May in the year we removed them). We don't have a carry over debt anymore and have had a surplus to budget every year since 2001.



jarta said:


> I am not defending anything other than the SDO board accepting a deal for $400K up front ($200 per week) and an additional $800 per week sold.



You are ignoring that the $400 k is ALL they will get and that they are subsidizing the annual fee for Starwood! Most likely they are giving most or all back in those waived annual fees. it was good only for a one time cash influx that cannot be included in any future budgets. How many have they sold and what is the incentive or time limit for them to do so? Ours must be done within 12 months.



jarta said:


> I guess you just won't say in plain language how much you get from the auction of the lien.  The post above is an explanation of the costs if the resort did the foreclosures itself.  But you did throw in the fact that there is no revenue.



As a matter of fact we did get a similar slug of one time income when we signed the deal - $400K exactly (4 payments of $100K over the first year). We used it to pay close to 50% of the cost of a new Housekeeping & Maintenance building we sorely needed. But unlike the Starwood deal we did not subsidize the fees and in fact collected on every week in the foreclosure process thus generating fees that otherwise would have been lost. Less bad debt. 



jarta said:


> I guess if your resort would only get $700 if it did the auction itself and would lose money because foreclosure costs more than $700.  That means that means there's little to no revenue generated by the auction of the lien when you don't do it because the assignee is assuming a $700+ cost at the start of things.  It's nearly a gift to the assignee and with the understanding the current MF delinquencies are waived but $700+ foreclosure cost and the upcoming MFs are the assignee's problem - unless the foreclosure turns into a judicial proceeding.  Please correct me if I'm reading your post wrong.



We auction weeks that somehow end up as Association owned. The average revenue has been around $1000 ea. But since we never take title to the foreclosed weeks that are given to the contract we do not realize any additional income from them - just the fees. Any prior fees due (and it is unlikely there would be any as we handle each years delinquents within 12 months) are automatically wiped out not by our contract but by the laws of the foreclosure process. They are not collectable which is why it is SO important that no massive group (2000 weeks!!!) ever be allowed to form. THAT is what management is charged with doing as well. If they aren't and delinquencies go over 90 days without action then they aren't doing the job well. In our case we fired that group and brought in one that could do it (and for far less).



jarta said:


> And, please let me know how SDO got skinned again by accepting $400K up front.   Salty



Covered above. Management doesn't do the job they are paid for then gets a sweetheart deal that actually appears to cost the Association over it's lifetime.  Skinned is the word I'm afraid. Hopefully an Owner controlled Board that has some options will do much better next time.


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

curiousguest,  ...   





> I am starting to think, as someone else stated, that Jarta is very pro-Starwood. This would not have something to do with him having the same last name as this Starwood employee? Pure coincidence?



Not related to her, Andy Rooney, Art Rooney, Rooney Mara, Wayne Rooney, Mickey Rooney or Little Annie Rooney.  lol!

This is me (note the peer rating for over 25 years):
http://www.martindale.com/James-A-Rooney/932137-lawyer.htm

This is me at age 25 (note the court):  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Schilb_v._Kuebel

Never worked for Starwood.  Starwood runs a good, but expensive, timeshare system, IMO.  It can be arrogant and is always self-promoting using a dialect of English known as Starwood double-speak.  

Curiosity satisfied?  Now, who are you?      ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Sep 26, 2012)

How quickly things can change!  A 2010 post:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122373

Note the options to be considered for disposing of foreclosed properties.  Salty


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 26, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> We most certainly do! It's called "surplus to budget" and it goes directly to the next years fees. Compare that to the bad debt carried over from year that many resorts have (including ours when the Developer had control. We were technically broke in May in the year we removed them). We don't have a carry over debt anymore and have had a surplus to budget every year since 2001.
> 
> You are ignoring that the $400 k is ALL they will get and that they are subsidizing the annual fee for Starwood! Most likely they are giving most or all back in those waived annual fees. it was good only for a one time cash influx that cannot be included in any future budgets. How many have they sold and what is the incentive or time limit for them to do so? Ours must be done within 12 months.
> 
> ...



Timeos2 provides a perfect example of sound fiduciary responsibility by an HOA.  After the SDO elections, the next step is to evaluate the quality of independent thought and leadership being provided, including by the current president.  Best of luck to you all.


----------



## siesta (Sep 26, 2012)

Thank you to deniseM for bringing this issue to owners' attention, I will keep an eye out for the letter.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 26, 2012)

Hi Siesta - It's an over-sized postcard with the Sheraton "S" Logo.

Here is the number to call if you don't get a postcard:  *1-888-596-2215*, but I'd give it a few days, because they are dated Sept. 19, and some people are just getting them today.

You must vote by Thurs., Oct. 18, 9:00 a.m. - the board meeting is that morning at 10 a.m.

The postcard has a unique url and password to use to sign-in and vote.


----------



## VacationForever (Sep 26, 2012)

IMHO, Jarta/Jim is the most analytical and ethical TUGger.  If he is running for the President position on the BOD he gets my vote!


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 27, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Hi Siesta - It's an over-sized postcard with the Sheraton "S" Logo.
> 
> Here is the number to call if you don't get a postcard:  *1-888-596-2215*, but I'd give it a few days, because they are dated Sept. 19, and some people are just getting them today.
> 
> ...



Denise, you are one passionate, and powerful, woman.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 27, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Denise, you are one passionate, and powerful, woman.



Why thank you, Beefnot; I feel the same way about you!


----------



## Renny30 (Sep 27, 2012)

I just checked my messages at MyStarCentral to see if i received a response to my question about the vote and this is what I received:

Posted by: Home Owner's Association	09-27-2012 6:48 p.m. Eastern
Dear XXXXX, 

Thank you for contacting SVO Management, Inc. 

We take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new purchase. In regards to your inquiry, we regret that we are unable to directly assist with this matter through this channel. For assistance with your request, it is recommended that you contact the Paper Proxy Request line at 1-888-596-2215. We extend our apologies for any confusion that this may have caused.

Should you have any concerns regarding your annual dues, please feel free to get back to us at 1-800-729-8246. We will be happy to assist you. 

Sincerely, 
Enrique Fernández 
SVO Management, Inc.


I love how he added the note about the MFs. "I can't help you vote, but I can help you pay." 

Anyway, I have the number to call. Same one Denise listed.


----------



## levatino (Sep 29, 2012)

Still didn't get my ballot yet.  I am in New England here....


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 29, 2012)

Hmmm....if you don't get it on Monday, you might want to call.


----------



## levatino (Oct 4, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Hmmm....if you don't get it on Monday, you might want to call.



Still nothing yet.
I called and left a message on the voicemail.

Paul


----------



## toddvb20 (Oct 6, 2012)

What will all be decided at the October meeting?  Is this just to elect the new BOD or do they decide on the renovations and set the MFs for the upcoming year?


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 6, 2012)

toddvb20 said:


> What will all be decided at the October meeting?  Is this just to elect the new BOD or do they decide on the renovations and set the MFs for the upcoming year?



See this post from the Board President - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364395&postcount=97

He said:  *"At this stage, we are obtaining competitive bids for review at our next board meeting October 17."*


----------



## jarta (Oct 6, 2012)

toddvb20 said:


> What will all be decided at the October meeting?  Is this just to elect the new BOD or do they decide on the renovations and set the MFs for the upcoming year?



2 meetings will be held on October 17.

First, the required annual meeting of the members.  At that meeting, if a quorum of the members is present in person or by proxy, the election will occur.  Then, the annual meeting will adjourn.

Second, the first meeting of the new board will occur.  At that general board meeting, any business may be considered.  However, it is obvious the bids received for the renovation will be considered and, maybe, a decision will be made then about what renovations will be done.  

Once the bids are received and the scope and cost and timing of the renovations for 2013 are determined, the board has a good idea of what money will be necessary for the 2013 renovations.  The board can then turn its attention to determining the amount of money (MFs and reserves) necessary to pay for the operations of the resort and the renovations and prepare the proposed 2013 budget for distribution to the members.  

An efficient board might be able to sift through the bids, determine total cost, decide how much will be paid by annual MFs and how much will be paid by reserves and vote on a proposed budget on October 17, but probably not.  The board will probably set the discussion of the scope of the renovations for the November meeting along with a vote on a proposed 2013 budget.

At the next board meeting after notification of the adoption of the proposed budget is given (probably the December meeting), the board votes on the 2013 budget and the 2013 annual MF bills are mailed to the owners.

The above might not be exactly what will happen, but illustrates the logical steps to be taken to approve the renovation and convert the 2013 expenses into 2013 MF bills.   Salty


----------



## Ryes (Oct 11, 2012)

I got an email from sdo about the vote and so gave keith terry my proxy vote (could do it online). Don't know anything about him other than what he post earlier in this thread but his positions in that post seemed well thought out.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 11, 2012)

NewGuest said:


> I got an email from sdo about the vote and so gave keith terry my proxy vote (could do it online). Don't know anything about him other than what he post earlier in this thread but his positions in that post seemed well thought out.



You should have gotten a postcard, with a unique url and password to go online and vote yourself.


----------



## bengates2860 (Oct 13, 2012)

Now owner of two units. EOY 2bdr and small one bdr annual.  I received two votes, one for each unit and voted for your recommended candidates Denise.

It seems to be my luck as soon as I purchase a timeshare there is some kind of assessment or something.

I am hoping that the 30% increase with be enough, although I doubt it. 

Also, I just was able to vote online today, I have been attempting all last week and once I typed in the url they gave me it said not allowed.  Anyone else been having that problem?


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 13, 2012)

Thank you for voting!  

One other owner had the same problem - possibly a browser issue, because it finally worked on a different computer/browser.


----------



## mandoggy (Oct 14, 2012)

Voted today! Thanks Denise for keeping us in the loop!


----------



## TrojanRickus (Oct 15, 2012)

I did not get it either.  whom should I give my proxy vote to?


----------



## TrojanRickus (Oct 15, 2012)

Sorry,  I got it and voted.  thank you for all you do fo all of the misinformed owners.


----------



## folashade (Oct 15, 2012)

Denise, thanks for the PM. I've been traveling for the past few weeks  and saw the email regarding voting. This has been a helpful read and when I get home I need to go thru the mail for the postcard and vote.


----------



## WestinOwner (Oct 17, 2012)

*three more votes for Baron and Lee*

Just voted...  three more votes for each of Baron and Lee.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 17, 2012)

Thank you 3 times!!!


----------



## Quadmaniac (Oct 18, 2012)

Done and done


----------

