# Sunset Harbor to vote on terminating Hyatt management contract



## magicjourney

It's coming... Just received the email:

Dear Sunset Harbor Owners:

The Board of Directors of Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association requests your support for major, positive change at our resort. After many years of struggling with our management company (Hyatt Vacation Management) predominantly with pushback, the Board has determined that we need to move in a new direction that will benefit all owners.

Following much consideration, your Board recommends to owners to vote “yes” on two significant questions: (1) whether to terminate our Hyatt Management Contract and (2) whether to terminate our Hyatt Residence Club Resort Agreement.

These two questions will be on the ballot for a Special Meeting of Members of our Association to be held on Thursday, July 14th at 1:00pm EDT.

The Board has noted the following important reasons to terminate our contracts:

A vote to terminate the Management Contract is a vote:

to take back full control of our property;
to eliminate excessive management fees; and
to contract with new management which will work solely for the benefit of owners.

A vote to terminate the Club Resort Agreement is a vote:

to eliminate substantial Club Fees which the Board believes do not benefit most owners;
to eliminate the Club’s use of our property for transient 1-to-2-night reservations;
to eliminate the Club’s requirement each year for owners to reserve or lose the right to use their deeded Unit Weeks; and
to terminate owner use of the Club’s points-based reservation and exchange system and related services which is reviewed in the Appendix to this letter.

The Board believes that termination of the Management Contract and Club Resort Agreement will allow our Association to market our Resort and the benefits of ownership as we seek to improve the demand for and value of Unit Weeks.

The Board also projects that termination of the Management Contract and Club Resort Agreement will eliminate meaningful expense, including $325,000 of annual Club Fees and a significant portion of current management fees and management overhead.

A more in-depth review of the Board’s reasoning in recommending termination of both contracts, and responses to questions you may have, are set forth in an Appendix to this letter.


----------



## ScoopKona

I think the only real question is just how overwhelmingly the owners will vote Hyatt out. 

If I were wagering, I'd put the over/under at 65%.


----------



## JanT

I don’t see myself voting for this without more information.  I hate this kind of crap and wish I’d gotten rid of my weeks.


----------



## vacationtime1

The answer will be resort specific, but I wonder what the quorum is for a vote such as this, and how difficult will it be for the Board to get owners to vote.  The post immediately above suggests the problem.


----------



## AJCts411

An owner here.  Two weeks.  I'm not a trader nor do I use points.  I think that context by commenters is important. Non_ owners goals are different than week owners.   That said I will be in support of both a new management company and leaving HRC.  In  my opinion the portfolillo operations have been determental to those who own weeks to use at sunset.  Example is the sales pitch that pushes the idea we owners are the problem with portfolio a availability.   
The club also restricts my lock out unit use by forcing one side to be deposited.  I own this week and I object to this.
And as detailed, our costs are not being  controlled adequately by management.  Now look in old town...the property values...compare Galleon and Banyon our values are lagging.  As you can it's a thumbs up for me.. yes.   Editied to add...Never use points and yet wecan not opt out of II.  We pay II fees twice one fee per week, with zero benefits.


----------



## TravelTime

I used to own a Hyatt week. I would absolutely hate if this happened to one of my weeks. The ability to do internal trades is going to disappear. I guess you can only trade using II going forward. I would hate if any of my units were taken out of any point system.

If there is extra space and non-owners are trading in through the points system, then wouldn’t that mean owners are wanting to go to other Hyatt properties?

This will still not prevent the problems of owners renting out their units and having renters trash the units. In fact, it might get worse if owners have no choice but to rent or exchange using II.


----------



## Kal

For decades, Hyatt has been pushing buy the Beach House and stay at Sunset Harbor.  So that encourages "renter occupancy".  Owners pay careful attention to resort specific issues, while the renter motto is "whatever".  On one of the first remodels, Hyatt wanted to make HSH interiors look like Aspen.  What's wrong with that picture for a Caribbean resort????  Hyatt also insisted on a specific line of area rugs and sofa.  A new sofa was installed in my unit while I was there and the fabric ripped the first time I sat on it.  The area rug was trashed within 2 months.  But the portion of MF's paid to Hyatt Management increased every year, without any justification.  

I really hope this effort passes.  Owner occupancy at HSH is the highest in the system so hopefully they don't sit on their hands.


----------



## Sapper

Interesting email, thank you for posting it. I’m not an owner at Sunset, so I do not have a horse in the race. However, a board of directors should be presenting both sides of the situation along with their recommendations.


----------



## ScoopKona

Sapper said:


> Interesting email, thank you for posting it. I’m not an owner at Sunset, so I do not have a horse in the race. However, a board of directors should be presenting both sides of the situation along with their recommendations.



Owners were grumbling about Hyatt management back when I worked for Hyatt. The basic objection is "riff-raff are trading into our resort on the cheap and trashing the place." 

They own some of the most-expensive real estate in Key West. Beach House isn't even on the island and Windward Point abuts an airport. People who own at SH tend to use what they own. And they're sick of coming in after the college kids using daddy's points or the maniac who snuck a cat into the unit just left.


----------



## GTLINZ

Sapper said:


> Interesting email, thank you for posting it. I’m not an owner at Sunset, so I do not have a horse in the race. However, a board of directors should be presenting both sides of the situation along with their recommendations.



Please note the end of the original post, which I do not believe has been posted (yet):

"A more in-depth review of the Board’s reasoning in recommending termination of both contracts, and responses to questions you may have, are set forth in an Appendix to this letter."


----------



## Sapper

ScoopLV said:


> Owners were grumbling about Hyatt management back when I worked for Hyatt. The basic objection is "riff-raff are trading into our resort on the cheap and trashing the place."
> 
> They own some of the most-expensive real estate in Key West. Beach House isn't even on the island and Windward Point abuts an airport. People who own at SH tend to use what they own. And they're sick of coming in after the college kids using daddy's points or the maniac who snuck a cat into the unit just left.



Beach House is on the island, just the other side from SH.

If people are using points to get in, then that means owners are trading their unit to go elsewhere.

As I said, I don’t have a horse in the race, my thoughts are that the board is failing to present both sides and then give their recommendations. They present a strong argument for one thing.


----------



## Sapper

GTLINZ said:


> Please note the end of the original post, which I do not believe has been posted (yet):
> 
> "A more in-depth review of the Board’s reasoning in recommending termination of both contracts, and responses to questions you may have, are set forth in an Appendix to this letter."


 Thank you for highlighting that, and I do hope the appendix will be posted. However, the board email only presents the benefits of leaving the Hyatt management and club in the body of this email.


----------



## ScoopKona

Sapper said:


> Beach House is on the island, just the other side from SH.



It's on the edge of the old Cow Key bridge. That's so far away it may as well be Miami to a Conch. Back when that place was built, Stock Island is where all the dregs were -- it's cleaned up considerably in 20 years thanks to gentrification. But it's not "throw a baseball to Mallory Pier."


----------



## Sapper

ScoopLV said:


> It's on the edge of the old Cow Key bridge. That's so far away it may as well be Miami to a Conch. Back when that place was built, Stock Island is where all the dregs were -- it's cleaned up considerably in 20 years thanks to gentrification. But it's not "throw a baseball to Mallory Pier."



And yet, it is still on the island. It’s also a nice property.


----------



## Kal

For years it was "buy the Beach House and stay at Sunset Harbor".  So if HSH terminates out of the HRC program, the people who bought the Beach House and always stayed at HSH will not be happy.  They would have lost their link to HSH.  They don't have skin in the game because they don't have a vote at HSH.  However, if people own the Beach House AND HSH, they would not likely vote to terminate.


----------



## Sapper

I would love to have a look at the Hyatt sales agreement when they pitched the system to II.… or a renegotiated contract with MVC. Specifically to see if there is some kind of provision for loss of properties. Hyatt Hotels corporate cannot be happy about loosing Aspen (lost revenue from rent and licensing, loss of a high profile location for their name), now a looming vote at Sunset Harbor.

I also wonder how much attention this is generating at MVC.  First Aspen, now HSH. Either way the vote goes, how does Hyatt/MVC management change their practices to appease owners?


----------



## ScoopKona

Sapper said:


> And yet, it is still on the island. It’s also a nice property.



Beach House is where I own. That's ALSO where I used to go fishing as a kid. 

But saying that's Key West is the same as saying that Tuckahoe is the Upper East Side. 

Sunset Harbor is as good as it gets in Key West. Seriously. If I could pick any real estate, that's what I'd pick. And Hyatt hasn't been treating the owners like they own as good as it gets FOR DECADES.


----------



## Digdot

TravelTime said:


> I used to own a Hyatt week in Key West. I would absolutely hate if this happened to one of my weeks. The ability to do internal trades is going to disappear. I guess you can only trade using II going forward.





JanT said:


> I don’t see myself voting for this without more information.  I hate this kind of crap and wish I’d gotten rid of my weeks.





AJCts411 said:


> An owner here.  Two weeks.  I'm not a trader nor do I use points.  I think that context by commenters is important. Non_ owners goals are different than week owners.   That said I will be in support of both a new management company and leaving HRC.  In  my opinion the portfolillo operations have been determental to those who own weeks to use at sunset.  Example is the sales pitch that pushes the idea we owners are the problem with portfolio a availability.
> The club also restricts my lock out unit use by forcing one side to be deposited.  I own this week and I object to this.
> And as detailed, our costs are not being  controlled adequately by management.  Now look in old town...the property values...compare Galleon and Banyon our values are lagging.  As you can it's a thumbs up for me.. yes.   Editied to add...Never use points and yet wecan not opt out of II.  We pay II fees twice one fee per week, with zero benefits.


Your lockout can be rented or used to extend your stay depending upon availability


----------



## Pathways

Digdot said:


> Your lockout can be rented or used to extend your stay depending upon availability


This is a 'theoretically true' statement.  And in all practicality, false.  

Hyatt continues to refuse to split your lockout into two reservations, (some reports here of success if you reach the 'right' CS agent or argue enough). The only practical way to rent half of the lockout is to be on-site and get the keys done separately yourself. (and that's NOT practical)

Use half the lockout to extend your stay?  Of course you can, 'based upon availability'.  Now that's a real timeshare salesperson comment. The odds of being able to occupy half for your HRPP and use the other half for the preceding/following week? NOT happening at SH. The 
Hyatt system takes all that out of the owner's hands.


----------



## magicjourney

It seems some people are interested in the rational of board's recommendation. Here you go



APPENDIX INCLUDING ANSWERS TO POSSIBLE QUESTIONS​
Please note the Management Contract provides for the day-to-day management, maintenance, and operation of Sunset Harbor Resort, the Club Resort Agreement provides for our Resort property to be in the Hyatt Residence Club, and for our owners to make reservations using the Club’s exchange program. An owner vote approving terminations will end these arrangements, subject to a reasonable transition period to be set by the Board.

REASONS TO TERMINATE THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

1.   CONTRACT HISTORY


·The Management Contract was entered into in 1994 prior to Developer’s sale of any Unit Weeks and the 1995 opening of Sunset Harbor Resort. As there were no owners at that time, this Contract was signed on behalf of the Association by an executive of the management company.
Prior to this Contract becoming effective, independent legal counsel for the Association was not engaged to represent and look after the interests of future Unit Week owners. In the view of the Board, owner interests were not addressed and represented.

2.   NO CONTROL OF OUR PROPERTY and MAJOR COSTS


The Management Contract provides that the management company has all the powers and duties of the Association as set forth in the Condominium Documents. The result in practice is that this Contract provides for a near-complete delegation to our management company of all the powers and duties of our Association and its Board of Directors.
In effect, in the Board’s view, the Management Contract provides the management company with overly broad, virtually exclusive control over every aspect of our Resort and its operation, leaving Unit Week owners with insufficient input and little to no control.
In 2018 Marriott Vacations Worldwide (MVW) acquired the Hyatt Residence properties. With this acquisition, MVW continues to exercise and maintain virtually exclusive control over our Resort and its operation. In the view of the Board, Sunset Harbor Resort benefits MVW substantially more than MVW benefits our owners.
An example of MVW’s insufficient regard for Sunset Harbor interests is the landscaping contract which MVW negotiated to cover all three Hyatt Residence Club Key West properties. Sunset Harbor’s allocated share was $51,000. At the Board’s insistence, the management company terminated our participation in that contract and solicited new bids solely for our property. Our new landscaping contract costs $22,000 - a savings of $29,000.
Another example of MVW’s insufficient regard for Sunset Harbor interests is the housekeeping contract which MVW negotiated after approval of Sunset Harbor’s 2021 budget. These contracts cover all three Hyatt Residence Club Key West properties. Sunset Harbor’s 2021 housekeeping budget was $421,000; however, with no warning from management or any input from the Board, housekeeping expense under the new contract ballooned to $719,000, a $298,000 increase, 58% over budget. MVW never solicited bids solely for our property. The Board has been unable thus far to determine if there may be a lower cost option tailored exclusively for Sunset Harbor as was the case with our new landscaping contract.
To have efficient, cost-effective management focused on the best interests of our owners, the Board recommends termination of the Management Contract and the return of responsibility and control of operations to our Association.
 
3.   EXCESSIVE MANAGEMENT FEE


The Management Contract provides for a non-negotiated management fee up to 15% of the Association’s annual operating budget, excluding reserves and property taxes. The actual management fee has been 13% since our Resort opened in 1995. The management company has announced that it intends to increase the fee to 14% in 2023 and 15% in 2024. The 2022 budgeted management fee is $325,000. This contract has no incentives for reducing operating costs.
The Board understands another Hyatt Residence Club property terminated its management contract and secured highly qualified replacement management at a fee approximately one-half of the 15% rate. Such a competitive rate could reduce our management fee significantly per Unit Week. Our current management fee is above-market and has cost Owners substantially since 1995. This will continue unless our Management Contract is terminated.
 

4.   CRITERIA FOR NEW MANAGEMENT


There are numerous highly qualified, independent management companies, several of which manage luxury properties in Key West and the Florida Keys. Pursuant to a detailed Request for Proposal, the Board will seek competitive proposals, control the selection and engagement process, approve the hiring of key personnel, and set high performance standards and expectations. A new management company will be required to be completely transparent to owners and your Board.
Our new management company will perform contracted management services for a competitive management fee and will be required to deliver superior service. Our property can and should be positioned to be among the most desirable independent properties in Key West.


REASONS TO CANCEL THE CLUB RESORT AGREEMENT

1.   CONTRACT HISTORY


The Club Resort Agreement was entered into in June 1995. As with the Management Contract, this was prior to Sunset Harbor Resort’s opening and was signed on behalf of our Association by an officer of the Developer, which is also a party to this Agreement.
As with the Management Contract, prior to entering into the Club Resort Agreement, independent legal counsel for the Association was not engaged to represent and look after the interests of future Unit Week owners. In the view of the Board, owner interests again were not addressed or represented.

2.   CLUB PROGRAM ISSUES


The Board believes that a very substantial majority of Sunset Harbor owners make Home Resort Reservation Period (HRRP) reservations and use their Unit Weeks for personal enjoyment and not for exchange purposes. These owners pay substantial annual Club fees without deriving benefits from Hyatt Residence Club membership.
Some Sunset Harbor owners elect to rent their Unit Week and not visit the property. These owners also do not use their Unit Weeks for exchange purposes and pay annual Club fees without deriving benefits from Hyatt Residence Club membership.
The Club Resort Agreement requires owners to reserve (or lose) each year the Unit Week which they bought and to which they have deeded title. The Board believes in owners’ rights to their property interests without a “reserve it or lose it” requirement. Post termination this requirement will be eliminated.
The Hyatt Residence Club, without any Sunset Harbor owner or Association input, entered into a Club-to-Club Exchange Agreement with the Portfolio Club which provides for 1-to-2-night stays at Club properties. In the Board’s view, such transient use is inconsistent with the intended use of our Sunset Harbor Resort as a “residence club” property. Consider that Sunset Harbor Resort is not a hotel, and our Club is branded the Hyatt Residence Club. As a result of transient use, our Units incur extra wear and our Association has additional housekeeping expense, for which our owners pay.

3.   SUBSTANTIAL FEES


The Hyatt Residence Club Dues for Sunset Harbor is $320,000. When the 13% management fee is applied, the total Club cost is $362,000, or $177 for each Unit Week regardless of whether an owner uses or derives any benefit from the Club.
Sunset Harbor owners who do use the Hyatt Residence Club website incur additional transaction fees such as $41 for certain reservations, $57 for cancellations and $30 for guest certificates. The Club has periodically raised these fees and will likely continue to do so.
Sunset Harbor owners’ annual cost for the Hyatt Residence Club is substantial and may soon approach $400,000 or about $200 for each Unit Week. The Board believes that this cost is not justified in terms of benefits to our owners.


4.   TERMINATION OF CLUB’S POINTS-BASED RESERVATION AND EXCHANGE SYSTEM, POSSIBILITY OF CLUB PARTICIPATION FOR OWNERS, AND POSSIBILITY OF OWNER PARTICIPATION IN NEW EXCHANGE PROGRAM


Termination of the Club Agreement terminates the current points-based reservation and exchange system which allow an owner to reserve and use Club properties, to access Interval International or to convert to World of Hyatt hotel points.
The Club Resort Agreement provides that following the termination of this agreement, the Hyatt Residence Club at its sole discretion may allow Sunset Harbor owners to participate in the Club. The Board will encourage the Hyatt Residence Club to allow Sunset Harbor owners that opportunity; however, owners should not assume the Club will do so.
If the Hyatt Residence Club elects not to allow owners that opportunity, the Board will seek a new, cost-effective exchange program for the benefit of owners who seek an exchange option.
If owners vote to terminate the Club Agreement, the Board plans to set a termination date of December 31, 2022, to protect Sunset Harbor owner use of all Club Points, including so-called COVID points, through year-end.
If owners vote to terminate the Club Agreement, the Board also plans to consider a Sunset Harbor only website with a password protected portal for owners to post their Unit Weeks exclusive trade or rent with other Sunset Harbor owners.

SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF UNIT WEEK VALUE


In 1995 when our Resort opened, the Board estimates that the average value of a Unit Week was approximately $20,000. Now, 27 years later, the Board estimates that the average value of a Unit Week is approximately $10,000 - a loss of about 50% in Key West where property values have soared during this period.
Sunset Harbor’s Developer, as of December 31, 2021, had conveyed 127 legacy, deeded Unit Weeks to the Portfolio Club which uses them for its points-based program. With additional conveyances, the Portfolio Club’s inventory will continue to grow and to erode personal ownership of Unit Weeks to the detriment of our owners.
The Portfolio Club has sales offices and aggressively markets its points-based program; however, there is no marketing of Unit Weeks. This negatively impacts the market for Sunset Harbor resales with little demand and depressed values
The Board believes that if our Resort were independent of the Hyatt Residence Club and affiliated Hyatt management, the market value for Unit Weeks would improve.


----------



## Digdot

AJCts411 said:


> An owner here.  Two weeks.  I'm not a trader nor do I use points.  I think that context by commenters is important. Non_ owners goals are different than week owners.   That said I will be in support of both a new management company and leaving HRC.  In  my opinion the portfolillo operations have been determental to those who own weeks to use at sunset.  Example is the sales pitch that pushes the idea we owners are the problem with portfolio a availability.
> The club also restricts my lock out unit use by forcing one side to be deposited.  I own this week and I object to this.
> And as detailed, our costs are not being  controlled adequately by management.  Now look in old town...the property values...compare Galleon and Banyon our values are lagging.  As you can it's a thumbs up for me.. yes.   Editied to add...Never use points and yet wecan not opt out of II.  We pay II fees twice one fee per week, with zero benefits.





AJCts411 said:


> An owner here.  Two weeks.  I'm not a trader nor do I use points.  I think that context by commenters is important. Non_ owners goals are different than week owners.   That said I will be in support of both a new management company and leaving HRC.  In  my opinion the portfolillo operations have been determental to those who own weeks to use at sunset.  Example is the sales pitch that pushes the idea we owners are the problem with portfolio a availability.
> The club also restricts my lock out unit use by forcing one side to be deposited.  I own this week and I object to this.
> And as detailed, our costs are not being  controlled adequately by management.  Now look in old town...the property values...compare Galleon and Banyon our values are lagging.  As you can it's a thumbs up for me.. yes.   Editied to add...Never use points and yet wecan not opt out of II.  We pay II fees twice one fee per week, with zero benefits.


Hey, I am an owner too. Just to let you know, I use my one bedroom and use the lock out points  for extra time there or I rent it out. Sounds like these options will not be available?


----------



## magicjourney

Hyatt has a relatively small portfolio. There are very few choice that make sense to owners of premier resorts (Aspen, Sunset harbor, Maui etc.). That's why point system is not attractive to them. If Hyatt/MVC doesn't make any change/improvement for those owners, sooner or later they will try to follow suite of Aspen. 

I think there are a couple of thing Hyatt can learn from MVC to increase the value and reduce MFs for the owners:
1. Assign more points to premier resorts to encourage the owners to try the other resorts. 
2. Eliminate the club dues for each contract. I used to own 3 HSH weeks, sold one recently. I seldomly use the points, but have to pay ~$500 club fees. That's one reason I will vote YES.


----------



## dioxide45

Even the Appendix is very one sided and doesn't show what will be lost if owners vote to drop MVW as the management company. My guess is that the board will also opt to affiliate with RCI and not push II as an option since it too is owned by MVW. This will leave SH owners with no real name brand timeshares to trade in to except HGVC and its $25 per day resort fees for inbound exchangers.


----------



## ScoopKona

dioxide45 said:


> My guess is that the board will also opt to affiliate with RCI and not push II as an option since it too is owned by MVW. This will leave SH owners with no real name brand timeshares to trade in to except HGVC and its $25 per day resort fees for inbound exchangers.



There's always Dial-an-exchange. 

Most SH owners use what they own. So they really don't care about exchange possibilities. And exchanging into SH is one of the big gripes they have. SH is top-three for "highest trading power in the Hyatt system." They're not going to have any difficulty exchanging if they choose to do so.


----------



## bizaro86

dioxide45 said:


> Even the Appendix is very one sided and doesn't show what will be lost if owners vote to drop MVW as the management company. My guess is that the board will also opt to affiliate with RCI and not push II as an option since it too is owned by MVW. This will leave SH owners with no real name brand timeshares to trade in to except HGVC and its $25 per day resort fees for inbound exchangers.



I think dual affiliated almost always benefits owners - more choice isn't a bad thing as long as both options are available. Something like Third Home would probably also be an option given the location/quality.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> This will leave SH owners with no real name brand timeshares to trade in to except HGVC and its $25 per day resort fees for inbound exchangers


The BOD has been trying to work with Hyatt about their concerns for YEARS.  They have the history of the exact number of owners who don't utilize their owned week. It is a very small %.  Don't want to quote the number as I don't remember exact, but it is so small I really pushed back on the accuracy.  They pulled out a sheet with all the history and rattled of the numbers.  I was very surprised.

The BOD has been all about the owner - It is a unique location, with two 'competing' timeshares within a couple of blocks.  The others have kept their MF's very stable while SH has climbed like crazy. The Galleon is the real comparison. Their fees are now around 1200, and the sales prices of a week there have gone through the roof.

Hyatt charges 157.00 for club dues.  That is PER WEEK.  No discount for multiple weeks.  For most HSH owners, that is 157 bucks right off the top that give them nothing in return as they use their week every year.  PER WEEK.  Can you imagine HGVC charging an annual club fee on EVERY week instead of a set price for all?  For those of us that own multiple HRC weeks, it it a huge outlay for nothing at all in return.  Even MVC with the new Vistana merger is only charging a single annual fee for your entire ownership, and then halting all the other mickey mouse fees. 

That is one of the biggest complaints - An owner who stays six weeks every winter will pay $942 to Hyatt for nothing. (Remember the management fee is a separate item)  I really thought with the fee setup for all the other Marriott branded timeshares having the lower fees, Hyatt (really Marriott) would agree to change their fee structure with HRC to match.  Just that change alone might have staved off this entire push.

For a long time, the argument has been 'why are our fees so much higher that BH and WP'?  Hyatt fixed that - BH and WP raised their fees to where they are getting close to SH.

Bottom line on trades: Let each owner add their week to whichever exchange company they want.  For each week at SH they will get more than 1 for exchange value.


----------



## geist1223

Best of luck.


----------



## dioxide45

Pathways said:


> The BOD has been trying to work with Hyatt about their concerns for YEARS.  They have the history of the exact number of owners who don't utilize their owned week. It is a very small %.  Don't want to quote the number as I don't remember exact, but it is so small I really pushed back on the accuracy.  They pulled out a sheet with all the history and rattled of the numbers.  I was very surprised.
> 
> The BOD has been all about the owner - It is a unique location, with two 'competing' timeshares within a couple of blocks.  The others have kept their MF's very stable while SH has climbed like crazy. The Galleon is the real comparison. Their fees are now around 1200, and the sales prices of a week there have gone through the roof.
> 
> Hyatt charges 157.00 for club dues.  That is PER WEEK.  No discount for multiple weeks.  For most HSH owners, that is 157 bucks right off the top that give them nothing in return as they use their week every year.  PER WEEK.  Can you imagine HGVC charging an annual club fee on EVERY week instead of a set price for all?  For those of us that own multiple HRC weeks, it it a huge outlay for nothing at all in return.  Even MVC with the new Vistana merger is only charging a single annual fee for your entire ownership, and then halting all the other mickey mouse fees.
> 
> That is one of the biggest complaints - An owner who stays six weeks every winter will pay $942 to Hyatt for nothing. (Remember the management fee is a separate item)  I really thought with the fee setup for all the other Marriott branded timeshares having the lower fees, Hyatt (really Marriott) would agree to change their fee structure with HRC to match.  Just that change alone might have staved off this entire push.
> 
> For a long time, the argument has been 'why are our fees so much higher that BH and WP'?  Hyatt fixed that - BH and WP raised their fees to where they are getting close to SH.
> 
> Bottom line on trades: Let each owner add their week to whichever exchange company they want.  For each week at SH they will get more than 1 for exchange value.


I can certainly see where the fee structure doesn't work. I simply don't understand why they charge a club fee for every week instead of a tiered pricing system like Marriott has in their Destinations Club points program or Vistana has with the VSN program. Something I don't understand from the appendix is this;

_The Hyatt Residence Club Dues for Sunset Harbor is $320,000. When the 13% management fee is applied, the total Club cost is $362,000, or $177 for each Unit Week regardless of whether an owner uses or derives any benefit from the Club._
What is this Club Dues of $320,000? Is this the total of all club dues paid by each owner to be in the club? I didn't think this was charged at the maintenance fee level. I don't think this is the management fee because that was listed elsewhere as $325,000. Does each owner pay the Club Dues individually or is it lumped in to their maintenance fee?


----------



## echino

Club dues are $157 for 2022. It's a separate line item in the association budget, both in the revenue section, and in the expenses section. It means that club dues are part of operating expenses for the purpose of calculating management fee, so yes, there is management fee percentage on top of club dues. So real club dues are $157 + 13% = $177.41 in case of HSH. Similar situation in other Hyatt resorts.


----------



## dioxide45

echino said:


> Club dues are $157 for 2022. It's a separate line item in the association budget, both in the revenue section, and in the expenses section. It means that club dues are part of operating expenses for the purpose of calculating management fee, so yes, there is management fee percentage on top of club dues. So real club dues are $157 + 13% = $177.41 in case of HSH. Similar situation in other Hyatt resorts.


That is a pretty raw deal. I don't know why Hyatt (VAC) would be so inflexible in wanting to negotiate a change to the structure. I get there will be a loss of revenue, but there is a bigger loss when resorts simply pull out altogether.


----------



## echino

The whole management fee as a percentage of operating expenses structure is raw deal, because the management company has a strong incentive to inflate budgeted operating expenses, which is the opposite of actual owners' interests.

As an example of artificially inflated operating expenses, we've seen Marriott add "operating reserve" to operating expenses, so that they could charge a management fee on that line item. Reserves belong to a separate section of the budget and don't attract management fee percentage, only operating expenses do. So Marriott invented "operating reserve" to extract a bit more from the owners.


----------



## dsmrp

If owners approve to discontinue being part of HRC, is it spelled out on when that could happen?  Key West is way across country for us, but it'd be nice to see Sunset Harbor for a few days if we could.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> That is a pretty raw deal. I don't know why Hyatt (VAC) would be so inflexible in wanting to negotiate a change to the structure. I get there will be a loss of revenue, but there is a bigger loss when resorts simply pull out altogether.


Now you get the picture.  Raw deal is a very charitable description.  

Now if you only own 1 week, no problem.  2 weeks, annoying.  Multiple weeks (like many snowbird season owners at SH who never even utilize 'the club' or ever call the reservation line, I'm sure it is beyond annoying.

As I said above, I'm shocked Hyatt has not negotiated this fee away since no other Marriott entity charges this. 

As far as presenting both sides, we all already know the status quo.  They are presenting the other side.  This board is a very professional board with a lot of experience.  One of the board members is the broker who has been selling all the board owned weeks and private sellers also.  So I'm sure there is a lot of data on sales/pricing that entered into this decision.  

Of course, it's not a done deal. I'm not sure what the bylaws are as far a quorum etc for a decision like this.  My bet is they conferred at length with the Aspen BOD before they decided to move ahead.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> That is a pretty raw deal. I don't know why Hyatt (VAC) would be so inflexible in wanting to negotiate a change to the structure. I get there will be a loss of revenue, but there is a bigger loss when resorts simply pull out altogether.


As you might recall, overall I am a big HRC fan. And own quite a few weeks.

That said, their fee structure is horrendous.  As @ScoopLV has opined, the reserve/cancel fees do tend to keep rental speculation to a minimum, there are very few cancellations.

The fee that is unconscionable for a major timeshare company is the $650.00 transfer fee. Marriott fired all the long time transfer employees and folded it into their own group and kept the $650 fee.  At least the Marriott DC junk fee at 3 pp is not a masquerade that that's what their cost is, they pretty much admit it's a money grab.

Then they rolled out that points program which essentially takes money from long time owners based purely on FOMO.  And their bylaws make the points worthless.


----------



## Pathways

I'm sure someone will post the whole thing, but this was just received:

_Article II, Section 2.4 of the Association’s Bylaws sets a quorum requirement for Members’ Meetings of fifteen percent (15%) of the total voting interests eligible to vote. The total number of voting interests required to achieve a quorum is 306. Each Unit Week has one voting interest._

The electronic voting is active RIGHT NOW.  Last day to vote is July 13.

I have 6 votes and after great thought and contemplation, I have submitted my vote.


----------



## Kal

With all this, people are creatures of STATUS QUO.  The HSH owners are generally up there is age so that increases any resistance to change.  In my discussions with a key BOD member, he has talked at length with Aspen BOD members and has been polling owners on this issue for maybe 6 months.  So that tells me he has a good feel for the outcome.  I've got a large bucket of popcorn and am ready for Act 1 of this drama!


----------



## dsmrp

Possibly Marriott TS execs are too pre-occupied with Vistana integration to pay much attention now to what's happening with Sunset Harbor.  The club fee structure is bad;  I hadn't realized since I only own 1 week.
However the transfer fee of $650 is not out of line with what Hilton charges for their affiliated resorts.  It is their money grab on resales.  At least Hilton hasn't treated resale owners as poor step cousins, twice removed.


----------



## Sugarcubesea

Sapper said:


> And yet, it is still on the island. It’s also a nice property.



I own at the Beach House & purchased it to use and to internally trade...I hope all of the Hyatt's don't go this route


----------



## Pathways

Sugarcubesea said:


> I own at the Beach House & purchased it to use and to internally trade...I hope all of the Hyatt's don't go this route



It would be almost impossible IMHO for this to occur at BH.  Hyatt owns a huge number of weeks there and the owner occupancy is much lower. Therefore the votes wouldn't be there.

It's certainly not a done deal even at SH


----------



## Kal

Pathways said:


> I'm sure someone will post the whole thing, but this was just received:
> 
> _Article II, Section 2.4 of the Association’s Bylaws sets a quorum requirement for Members’ Meetings of fifteen percent (15%) of the total voting interests eligible to vote. The total number of voting interests required to achieve a quorum is 306. Each Unit Week has one voting interest._
> 
> The electronic voting is active RIGHT NOW.  Last day to vote is June 13.
> 
> I have 6 votes and after great thought and contemplation, I have submitted my vote.


Thanks for the information.  I would ask that you edit your post to show the last day of voting is JULY 13.  Voting with such a fast turn-around at June 13 would really be shocking!  Thank you!


----------



## ScoopKona

Sugarcubesea said:


> I own at the Beach House & purchased it to use and to internally trade...I hope all of the Hyatt's don't go this route



Sunset Harbor is special.

When it was being actively sold, people routinely bought multiple weeks at a clip with the idea that "it's a great deal less expensive than a snowbird vacation home in Key West."

It's the Zenith of "location, location, location." And the overwhelming majority of the owners use their week every year (or rent it out if something comes up). They never bought to trade. And all the club fees (and $150 Interval membership) are going to waste -- and subsidizing the less deluxe HRC properties.

What'll happen when they leave? (And I'd literally bet my farm that they will leave.) Other Hyatt owners will see a slight bump in fees -- Sunset Harbor owners have been carrying our water for decades. My only surprise is this didn't happen sooner -- they've been angry about this since Beach House and Windward were being sold. "Buy Windward, trade into SH!"


----------



## GTLINZ

Sapper said:


> I would love to have a look at the Hyatt sales agreement when they pitched the system to II.… or a renegotiated contract with MVC. Specifically to see if there is some kind of provision for loss of properties. Hyatt Hotels corporate cannot be happy about loosing Aspen (lost revenue from rent and licensing, loss of a high profile location for their name), now a looming vote at Sunset Harbor.
> 
> I also wonder how much attention this is generating at MVC.  First Aspen, now HSH. Either way the vote goes, how does Hyatt/MVC management change their practices to appease owners?




Section 2.1 Membership of the HRC Rules and Regulations

_Membership in the Club with respect to a specific Timeshare Interest or Unit automatically terminates for a given Club Member in the event the Member voluntarily or involuntarily transfers that Timeshare Interest or Unit, or in the event the Member’s Home Resort ceases to be a Club Resort._

FWIW: The Aspen TS is not part or owned by Hyatt Hotels.


----------



## echino

So which resort is next after Sunset Harbor? Park Hyatt Beaver Creek, then Siesta Key, then Kaanapali? The trend is for all nice and upscale resorts with high owner occupancy to leave HRC.


----------



## dioxide45

echino said:


> So which resort is next after Sunset Harbor? Park Hyatt Beaver Creek, then Siesta Key, then Kaanapali? The trend is for all nice and upscale resorts with high owner occupancy to leave HRC.


What are the chances of Kaanapali? Isn't it a newer resort? Is it mostly sold out? What kind of control does HRC still maintain over the BOD? How many units in HPP?


----------



## GTLINZ

magicjourney said:


> It seems some people are interested in the rational of board's recommendation. Here you go
> 
> 
> ​
> SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF UNIT WEEK VALUE
> 
> 
> Sunset Harbor’s Developer, as of December 31, 2021, had conveyed 127 legacy, deeded Unit Weeks to the Portfolio Club which uses them for its points-based program. With additional conveyances, the Portfolio Club’s inventory will continue to grow and to erode personal ownership of Unit Weeks to the detriment of our owners.
> The Portfolio Club has sales offices and aggressively markets its points-based program; however, there is no marketing of Unit Weeks. This negatively impacts the market for Sunset Harbor resales with little demand and depressed values



HPP is the gift that keeps on giving (NOT).

I wonder if Marriott had been involved before launching the HPP fiasco if it could have been a better product. The MVC points program did grant a bit less points than it would take to book your existing week - but overall it did add some flexibility to a massive program with many premium properties. 

I wonder if Hyatt may have been too small to try layering another system on top of,  similar to MVC.  HPP keeps adding new problems for HRC owners.

I too would be shocked if HSH does not pull out. I wouldn't blame the owners.  Who is next - very high HRPP usage - that fully participates in the club like Sunset Harbor and Aspen (Siesta Key plays by their own rules).


----------



## Pathways

ScoopLV said:


> Other Hyatt owners will see a slight bump in fees -- Sunset Harbor owners have been carrying our water for decades.


You certainly had a front row seat here - but why would it cause an increase at other locations? From my perspective, the only resorts where some co-mingling was done was BH and WP.  And most of that was done in the last couple years.

Resale at others may drop a little, but I think most owners knew there were very few weeks available internally to trade to HSH.  Both BH and WP are very nice resorts in their own right. Same weather, closer to beaches that you can wade/swim in, free parking, nicer pools and grounds. Only thing missing is the bars/mallory sq. location.  And families with young kids generally would rather be a little further away from Duval.

So within the HRC system, BH and WP may see a lot more requests and an increase in value.



echino said:


> So which resort is next after Sunset Harbor? Park Hyatt Beaver Creek, then Siesta Key, then Kaanapali? The trend is for all nice and upscale resorts with high owner occupancy to leave HRC.


Let's hope Hyatt sees the writing on the wall, and sees fit to lower those fees.  Good luck selling those points if all the 'go to' locations are gone.


----------



## GTLINZ

dioxide45 said:


> What are the chances of Kaanapali? Isn't it a newer resort? Is it mostly sold out? What kind of control does HRC still maintain over the BOD? How many units in HPP?



My understanding is that Kaanapali is not eligible for HPP - which likely helps if HPP is one of the biggest issues.

From what I have read here they are the only active location still selling HRC.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> What are the chances of Kaanapali? Isn't it a newer resort? Is it mostly sold out? What kind of control does HRC still maintain over the BOD? How many units in HPP?


There is no owner BOD yet - not enough sold.  But the developer is not Hyatt. The developer has enough power that they have refused to allow the points program to be sold there.


----------



## Sapper

GTLINZ said:


> FWIW: The Aspen TS is not part or owned by Hyatt Hotels.



The Aspen property carried the Hyatt name in a prestigious location. Hyatt Hotels benefited from that, an accountant might call it “good will” or something similar, but it had a value. You could also book units at the Aspen property through the Hyatt Hotels platform, so they derived rental revenue from that. Finally, they received licensing revenue because their name was on the property. All of that is gone now. That is why I made the comment that Hyatt Hotels cannot be happy about loosing the property.


----------



## Sapper

GTLINZ said:


> HPP is the gift that keeps on giving (NOT).
> 
> I wonder if Marriott had been involved before launching the HPP fiasco if it could have been a better product. The MVC points program did grant a bit less points than it would take to book your existing week - but overall it did add some flexibility to a massive program with many premium properties.



In a way, MVC did play a part in the creation of the HPP.  The people HRC brought in to develop the HPP were the ones who developed MVC’s point program.  I remember prior to the details of the system being announced there were hopes that the HPP creators would have learned lessons from developing MVC’s point system.  Perhaps they did, however, the lessons learned were not to the owners benefit.


----------



## RunCat

<deleted>


----------



## GTLINZ

Sapper said:


> The Aspen property carried the Hyatt name in a prestigious location. Hyatt Hotels benefited from that, an accountant might call it “good will” or something similar, but it had a value. You could also book units at the Aspen property through the Hyatt Hotels platform, so they derived rental revenue from that. Finally, they received licensing revenue because their name was on the property. All of that is gone now. That is why I made the comment that Hyatt Hotels cannot be happy about loosing the property.



Good point. I think most if not all HRC properties show up on the WOH site. I assume that inventory was available because of the management contract.  I also assume that even though WOH pulls premium rates that they keep a considerable percentage


----------



## dsmrp

I wonder if there are effects on the Hyatt branding contract for Marriott if Sunset Harbor owners vote out of HRC. E.g. is there an out clause if a certain number or percentage of resorts pull out of HRC? 
How many co-located hotel-HRCs are there besides Highlands Inn?


----------



## Kal

dsmrp said:


> I wonder if there are effects on the Hyatt branding contract for Marriott if Sunset Harbor owners vote out of HRC. E.g. is there an out clause if a certain number or percentage of resorts pull out of HRC?
> How many co-located hotel-HRCs are there besides Highlands Inn?


Coconut, Windward, Beach House, Sunset Harbor have Hyatt hotels close by.


----------



## Sapper

dsmrp said:


> I wonder if there are effects on the Hyatt branding contract for Marriott if Sunset Harbor owners vote out of HRC. E.g. is there an out clause if a certain number or percentage of resorts pull out of HRC?
> How many co-located hotel-HRCs are there besides Highlands Inn?


That is exactly why I was wondering out loud what the sales contract to II or the following agreement with MVC looks like. I remember someone here stating there was a requirement for MVC to increase the HRC footprint in the master licensing agreement. Unfortunately, I believe the “out” is simply stripping the properties of the Hyatt branding. What then?  Does MVC simply roll what ever properties that remain into the Marriott system?

Highlands Inn has a small co-located hotel that only exists to satisfy a community requirement for a hotel to be onsite, and could easily be rebranded to Marriott as it is controlled by MVC. The Park Hyatt in BC, however, is a Hyatt property that is licensed to a different owner than MVC, and would pose a significant challenge.  Other than these two properties, Hyatt Hotels are on physically different properties, even if close by and have some kind of use agreement for sharing facilities.


----------



## chrisbellows

For me, this is a horrible proposal and I lost sleep over it last night.   I own multiple weeks at Sunset Harbor, Windward, and Beach House.   I have benefitted greatly from being able to use my points at Hyatt properties.   I sometimes use my Sunset points for Beach House and Windward --- those are excellent resorts that offer an exceptional experience.   I have also looked forward to using my Sunset points for Hyatt properties outside of Florida.    I would lose a lot if Sunset opts out of Hyatt.   There are too many unknowns.   One might think they would never stay anywhere except Sunset Harbor, but life changes, kids or grandkids come into your life, and suddenly Beach House looks more attractive or Sedona or Colorado.    I do think we need a lot more information before voting on something as consequential as this.    We are all different and have different ways of looking at things.  But we all should know that a rush to judgment usually turns out bad.   And if anyone lives in a condo, you should know how dangerous it is to leave life-changing decisions to an HOA Board.


----------



## ScoopKona

chrisbellows said:


> But we all should know that a rush to judgment usually turns out bad.   And if anyone lives in a condo, you should know how dangerous it is to leave life-changing decisions to an HOA Board.



I wouldn't lose sleep. SH is going to trade like a monster anywhere you want to go. And you have the lockoff (which I wish the other two had) so it's already built in with more trading options.

For the vast majority of SH owners, Hyatt isn't giving them anything extra for the money -- they aren't using the club. And even when I worked there and it was owned by the Pritzkers, that company had a "my way or the highway" attitude about how the club was run.


----------



## Kal

chrisbellows said:


> For me, this is a horrible proposal and I lost sleep over it last night.   I own multiple weeks at Sunset Harbor, Windward, and Beach House.   I have benefitted greatly from being able to use my points at Hyatt properties.   I sometimes use my Sunset points for Beach House and Windward --- those are excellent resorts that offer an exceptional experience.   I have also looked forward to using my Sunset points for Hyatt properties outside of Florida.    I would lose a lot if Sunset opts out of Hyatt.   There are too many unknowns.   One might think they would never stay anywhere except Sunset Harbor, but life changes, kids or grandkids come into your life, and suddenly Beach House looks more attractive or Sedona or Colorado.    I do think we need a lot more information before voting on something as consequential as this.    We are all different and have different ways of looking at things.  But we all should know that a rush to judgment usually turns out bad.   And if anyone lives in a condo, you should know how dangerous it is to leave life-changing decisions to an HOA Board.


Just remember, there are two issues on the table.  One is the HRC exchange system and the other is resort management.  The TWO are separate.


----------



## AJCts411

Post #56...as this vote is only for sunset as you know your other properties are not affected.  IMO using Sunset point to trade to windward or beach house is a trade down.  Mostly because of sunsets prime location in old town.


----------



## chrisbellows

AJCts411 said:


> Post #56...as this vote is only for sunset as you know your other properties are not affected.  IMO using Sunset point to trade to windward or beach house is a trade down.  Mostly because of sunsets prime location in old town.


My little ones like Beach House and Windward better for some reason — everyone is different.   Right now any place in Key West is a blessing and would cost much more for a cash reservation than the maintenance fee — which by the way is the same as what I pay for Hilton in Sanibel.


----------



## bradj

At SH who are on the Board of Directors?


----------



## msneden

I recently sent the following note to Don Heisler, the President of the Association.  Don is a Key West residential real estate agent and is likely the most knowledgeable person we could possibly have leading this charge and I as an owner is thankful for his many years on our Board:

Hi Don,

I own 3 weeks at Sunset Harbor.

Can we terminate the Management Contract without terminating the Club Resort Agreement? I exchange at least one of my unit weeks every year for another Hyatt location, use HRPP for one and rent one. I am concerned about the loss of exchange privileges and reduced rental value from the loss of the Hyatt franchise affiliation. If the Management Contract is terminated can Hyatt/MVW terminate the Club Resort Agreement or otherwise reduce/eliminate privileges in retaliation?

If both recommendations “win”, would the property go into II or RCI?

The reasons for cancellation of both agreements are well written and compelling, and the replacement of the management company for a Board governed more cost-efficient firm is understandable. The ramifications and future owner options with the termination the Club Resort Agreement is not well explained.


----------



## INCHWORM

As owners of multiple HRC contracts (including 4 in KW) we were EXTREMELY distressed upon receiving the BOD email promoting exit from association with Hyatt. Why was this sent from Mr Heisler (who as a local timeshare resale agent might have conflict of interest) instead of the board president?
Secondly,  this was presented as a one-sided sales pitch as opposed to an even-handed evaluation of the pros/cons/risks/rewards of such a move. Forcing owners to vote without being FULLY INFORMED of what the future of SH may hold without Hyatt reflects poorly on the BOD's decision making process and oversight while pushing owners to make a decision based on incomplete information WHEN THERE IS NO CRITICAL URGENCY RIGHT NOW!!!
What is the RUSH???
As owners of multiple (highest end) HRC properties around the US, we frequently trade from place to place, vary our dates/times and trade into WOH hotel points.  We use it ALL and LOVE IT!
For all of us "older" owners who might typically use our SH deeded week/unit,  there WILL inevitably be times in the future when usage is not a convenient option.  Having alternatives within the Hyatt system is very valuable and worth a few extra $.


----------



## dioxide45

INCHWORM said:


> As owners of multiple HRC contracts (including 4 in KW) we were EXTREMELY distressed upon receiving the BOD email promoting exit from association with Hyatt. Why was this sent from Mr Heisler (who as a local timeshare resale agent might have conflict of interest) instead of the board president?
> Secondly,  this was presented as a one-sided sales pitch as opposed to an even-handed evaluation of the pros/cons/risks/rewards of such a move. Forcing owners to vote without being FULLY INFORMED of what the future of SH may hold without Hyatt reflects poorly on the BOD's decision making process and oversight while pushing owners to make a decision based on incomplete information WHEN THERE IS NO CRITICAL URGENCY RIGHT NOW!!!
> What is the RUSH???
> As owners of multiple (highest end) HRC properties around the US, we frequently trade from place to place, vary our dates/times and trade into WOH hotel points.  We use it ALL and LOVE IT!
> For all of us "older" owners who might typically use our SH deeded week/unit,  there WILL inevitably be times in the future when usage is not a convenient option.  Having alternatives within the Hyatt system is very valuable and worth a few extra $.


Don't worry, once SH is out, the board claims resale prices will appreciate so much and you can sell and buy somewhere else. Somehow I expect the opposite to happen, at least in the short term.


----------



## chrisbellows

INCHWORM said:


> As owners of multiple HRC contracts (including 4 in KW) we were EXTREMELY distressed upon receiving the BOD email promoting exit from association with Hyatt. Why was this sent from Mr Heisler (who as a local timeshare resale agent might have conflict of interest) instead of the board president?
> Secondly,  this was presented as a one-sided sales pitch as opposed to an even-handed evaluation of the pros/cons/risks/rewards of such a move. Forcing owners to vote without being FULLY INFORMED of what the future of SH may hold without Hyatt reflects poorly on the BOD's decision making process and oversight while pushing owners to make a decision based on incomplete information WHEN THERE IS NO CRITICAL URGENCY RIGHT NOW!!!
> What is the RUSH???
> As owners of multiple (highest end) HRC properties around the US, we frequently trade from place to place, vary our dates/times and trade into WOH hotel points.  We use it ALL and LOVE IT!
> For all of us "older" owners who might typically use our SH deeded week/unit,  there WILL inevitably be times in the future when usage is not a convenient option.  Having alternatives within the Hyatt system is very valuable and worth a few extra $.


Well said — I agree 100%


----------



## GTLINZ

dioxide45 said:


> Don't worry, once SH is out, the board claims resale prices will appreciate so much and you can sell and buy somewhere else. Somehow I expect the opposite to happen, at least in the short term.



I expect that what is best for the majority (HRPP use) is not best for all. This has to be unnerving for many owners.

But even if all trading options are lost, any owner should certainly have full rights to rent their unit for a handsome profit. This is an extremely desirable location and independence will most likely reap many rewards.

The thought of breaking away would not be possible at most timeshares - but because of the high ownership usage, the possible benefits are there.


----------



## dsmrp

Another thing SH owners might want to consider is Marriott has said they will work on integrating Hyatt after Vistana.  So maybe 2-4 years from now??  Most of us are resale HRC owners, and if Vistana is any indication, would have to pay $$ to be able to participate in Marriott Destination club DC.  Not that most SH/Key West owners would care as much to exchange into Marriott's locations ??

I don't see Marriott backing down from HPP, and will probably treat it similarly to what they are doing for Westin Flex; folding/grandfathering it into DC at a favorable internal exchange rate.  I can just hear the salesmen's spiel "don't miss out, buy xxxx HPP points to 'upgrade' your resale unit into the program and participate in the DC".


----------



## CPNY

ScoopLV said:


> Beach House is where I own. That's ALSO where I used to go fishing as a kid.
> 
> But saying that's Key West is the same as saying that Tuckahoe is the Upper East Side.
> 
> Sunset Harbor is as good as it gets in Key West. Seriously. If I could pick any real estate, that's what I'd pick. And Hyatt hasn't been treating the owners like they own as good as it gets FOR DECADES.


I live in the upper east side…. This place has gone downhill


----------



## dioxide45

dsmrp said:


> Another thing SH owners might want to consider is Marriott has said they will work on integrating Hyatt after Vistana.  So maybe 2-4 years from now??  Most of us are resale HRC owners, and if Vistana is any indication, would have to pay $$ to be able to participate in Marriott Destination club DC.  Not that most SH/Key West owners would care as much to exchange into Marriott's locations ??
> 
> I don't see Marriott backing down from HPP, and will probably treat it similarly to what they are doing for Westin Flex; folding/grandfathering it into DC at a favorable internal exchange rate.  I can just hear the salesmen's spiel "don't miss out, buy xxxx HPP points to 'upgrade' your resale unit into the program and participate in the DC".


I haven't seen any indication from MVW that they have any intention of integrating Hyatt into the Destinations Club product. In fact, they have stated the opposite on several earnings calls. Their licensing agreement with Hyatt will not permit it. This should not be a consideration at all for HSH owners.


----------



## Digdot

magicjourney said:


> Hyatt has a relatively small portfolio. There are very few choice that make sense to owners of premier resorts (Aspen, Sunset harbor, Maui etc.). That's why point system is not attractive to them. If Hyatt/MVC doesn't make any change/improvement for those owners, sooner or later they will try to follow suite of Aspen.
> 
> I think there are a couple of thing Hyatt can learn from MVC to increase the value and reduce MFs for the owners:
> 1. Assign more points to premier resorts to encourage the owners to try the other resorts.
> 2. Eliminate the club dues for each contract. I used to own 3 HSH weeks, sold one recently. I seldomly use the points, but have to pay ~$500 club fees. That's one reason I will vote YES.


Club fees are $157 per unit.


----------



## ScoopKona

CPNY said:


> I live in the upper east side…. This place has gone downhill



I've always wanted to spend one full year in Manhattan. Start and end in February. Go do everything I like to do in NYC and do it so often that I get it out of my system. Weekly trips to Arthur Ave. in the Bronx. Semi-weekly trips to a place that piles the pastrami so high it's impossible to eat with a normal-sized mouth. (Probably not Katz' -- they're great. But find a sleeper that isn't a tourist destination because of that movie.) Dim-sum every weekend -- both days. And all my favorite museums when I'm not stuffing myself with dim-sum, deli and salami. Even take vacations to New England for fried clams and fall colors. I went to school there, after all. I have a dozen clam joints I could gladly hit right now.

Maybe we could trade -- assuming your dream is to spend a full year in Hawaii cutting down invasive trees with a chain saw. ;-)


----------



## Digdot

msneden said:


> I recently sent the following note to Don Heisler, the President of the Association.  Don is a Key West residential real estate agent and is likely the most knowledgeable person we could possibly have leading this charge and I as an owner is thankful for his many years on our Board:
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> I own 3 weeks at Sunset Harbor.
> 
> Can we terminate the Management Contract without terminating the Club Resort Agreement? I exchange at least one of my unit weeks every year for another Hyatt location, use HRPP for one and rent one. I am concerned about the loss of exchange privileges and reduced rental value from the loss of the Hyatt franchise affiliation. If the Management Contract is terminated can Hyatt/MVW terminate the Club Resort Agreement or otherwise reduce/eliminate privileges in retaliation?
> 
> If both recommendations “win”, would the property go into II or RCI?
> 
> The reasons for cancellation of both agreements are well written and compelling, and the replacement of the management company for a Board governed more cost-efficient firm is understandable. The ramifications and future owner options with the termination the Club Resort Agreement is not well explained.


What was Don’s reply back to you?


----------



## Digdot

INCHWORM said:


> As owners of multiple HRC contracts (including 4 in KW) we were EXTREMELY distressed upon receiving the BOD email promoting exit from association with Hyatt. Why was this sent from Mr Heisler (who as a local timeshare resale agent might have conflict of interest) instead of the board president?
> Secondly,  this was presented as a one-sided sales pitch as opposed to an even-handed evaluation of the pros/cons/risks/rewards of such a move. Forcing owners to vote without being FULLY INFORMED of what the future of SH may hold without Hyatt reflects poorly on the BOD's decision making process and oversight while pushing owners to make a decision based on incomplete information WHEN THERE IS NO CRITICAL URGENCY RIGHT NOW!!!
> What is the RUSH???
> As owners of multiple (highest end) HRC properties around the US, we frequently trade from place to place, vary our dates/times and trade into WOH hotel points.  We use it ALL and LOVE IT!
> For all of us "older" owners who might typically use our SH deeded week/unit,  there WILL inevitably be times in the future when usage is not a convenient option.  Having alternatives within the Hyatt system is very valuable and worth a few extra $.


Perfect! No rush needed on an important decision.  It’s no.


----------



## Digdot

Digdot said:


> Perfect! No rush needed on an important decision.  It’s no.


Correct: vote no


----------



## CPNY

ScoopLV said:


> I've always wanted to spend one full year in Manhattan. Start and end in February. Go do everything I like to do in NYC and do it so often that I get it out of my system. Weekly trips to Arthur Ave. in the Bronx. Semi-weekly trips to a place that piles the pastrami so high it's impossible to eat with a normal-sized mouth. (Probably not Katz' -- they're great. But find a sleeper that isn't a tourist destination because of that movie.) Dim-sum every weekend -- both days. And all my favorite museums when I'm not stuffing myself with dim-sum, deli and salami. Even take vacations to New England for fried clams and fall colors. I went to school there, after all. I have a dozen clam joints I could gladly hit right now.
> 
> Maybe we could trade -- assuming your dream is to spend a full year in Hawaii cutting down invasive trees with a chain saw. ;-)


Arthur ave is great! But Staten Island has better options… just a bit more spread out. Although, casa de mozzarella and Calabria pork store is excellent on Arthur ave. China Town does have some great Dim Sum but I promise you, you won’t be there every weekend. The museums are fantastic but I’ve been to excellent museums outside of NYC as well. The pastrami is gone! You’re only going to get it at Katz (the tourist place), but that doesn’t mean it’s not good. The old world NYC is gone and it’s Been replaced with trendy everything. It’s lost it’s charm IMO. It’s still a nice city with a lot to offer. I can do EVERYTHING within a few blocks. I even found a dive center 15 blocks away that certified me for my trip to Tahiti. The conveniences are fantastic but the dirt, noise, crime, and cramp spaces really makes you wonder why anyone stays here for a while.

being that I lived in NYC my whole life I don’t think I could live in Hawaii. I could spend a few weeks there for sure. Of course after two weeks in French Polynesia, I’d rather sit on the plane an additional two hours and go there. The Polynesian culture combined with the European influences really appealed to me.

do yourself a favor, come to NYC and eat a ton of Dim Sum, visit Arthur ave, and get it all done in a long weekend lol.


----------



## ScoopKona

CPNY said:


> do yourself a favor, come to NYC and eat a ton of Dim Sum, visit Arthur ave, and get it all done in a long weekend lol.



I've done that. But then I want more pastrami/corned beef on rye, salami, and dim sum. 

Taiwan is about the same flight time -- and they have the real Din Tai Fung dim sum joint. So there's that.

And Molinari's in SF is as good as anything on Arthur Ave. But New York still has a year's worth of sports, museums, concerts and similar. I'd still do it if I could find someone whose dream is "be a Hawaiian coffee rancher for a year," I'd make that trade -- lopsided though it may be.


----------



## VacationForever

ScoopLV said:


> I've done that. But then I want more pastrami/corned beef on rye, salami, and dim sum.
> 
> Taiwan is about the same flight time -- and they have the real Din Tai Fung dim sum joint. So there's that.
> 
> And Molinari's in SF is as good as anything on Arthur Ave. But New York still has a year's worth of sports, museums, concerts and similar. I'd still do it if I could find someone whose dream is "be a Hawaiian coffee rancher for a year," I'd make that trade -- lopsided though it may be.


You can come to Las Vegas. There is a Din Tai Fung in Aria.  You can also have all the dim sum that you want at Orchids Garden and Ping Pang Pong.


----------



## ScoopKona

VacationForever said:


> You can come to Las Vegas. There is a Din Tai Fung in Aria.  You can also have all the dim sum that you want at Orchids Garden and Ping Pang Pong.



I left Las Vegas to come here. Without getting into specifics, I'm not a fan. I'll never return to that city ever again. 

If people like it there, GREAT! 

I'd rather have a root canal.


----------



## Kal

Digdot said:


> Perfect! No rush needed on an important decision.  It’s no.


I got it on the HRC Points system, but what about Hyatt managing the resort??


----------



## eleigh

dioxide45 said:


> I haven't seen any indication from MVW that they have any intention of integrating Hyatt into the Destinations Club product. In fact, they have stated the opposite on several earnings calls. Their licensing agreement with Hyatt will not permit it. This should not be a consideration at all for HSH owners.


At a Hyatt owners update in Maui in April we were told they will not integrate into one system.


----------



## chrisbellows

Digdot said:


> Correct: vote no


Vote NO!


----------



## INCHWORM

chrisbellows said:


> Vote NO!


AGREED!
How do we get the rest of the voters who might not see this forum to join in voting NO?

Will they realize that there should be no rush by the BOD to push through such a major decision WITHOUT defining what the future of SH will be without Hyatt affiliation (that would look pretty bleak IMO)
We've been quite astonished by the rushed,  one-sided proposal by the BOD. 
We believe that the options available by retaining Hyatt affiliation/exchange are quite valuable and a  divorce from that will devalue the property IMO.
But how can these alternative opinions and concerns be disseminated to all the voters (including those who might not visit this forum) for their consideration before they cast their vote? After all, the BOD had the bully pulpit via mass email for their one-sided presentation without opening it up for comments and debate.


----------



## AJCts411

INCHWORM said:


> As owners of multiple HRC contracts (including 4 in KW) we were EXTREMELY distressed upon receiving the BOD email promoting exit from association with Hyatt. Why was this sent from Mr Heisler (who as a local timeshare resale agent might have conflict of interest) instead of the board president?
> Secondly,  this was presented as a one-sided sales pitch as opposed to an even-handed evaluation of the pros/cons/risks/rewards of such a move. Forcing owners to vote without being FULLY INFORMED of what the future of SH may hold without Hyatt reflects poorly on the BOD's decision making process and oversight while pushing owners to make a decision based on incomplete information WHEN THERE IS NO CRITICAL URGENCY RIGHT NOW!!!
> What is the RUSH???
> As owners of multiple (highest end) HRC properties around the US, we frequently trade from place to place, vary our dates/times and trade into WOH hotel points.  We use it ALL and LOVE IT!
> For all of us "older" owners who might typically use our SH deeded week/unit,  there WILL inevitably be times in the future when usage is not a convenient option.  Having alternatives within the Hyatt system is very valuable and worth a few extra $.



The rush?  This topic has been going on for at least 3 years.  Hyatt hasxrespknddd with more...more increases for them selves, more negative owner retorhic at portfolio  updates.  Will the values increase maybe by comparison th galleon or Banyan a good chance.  I thank the BOD for doing the due diligence for the owners. I thank the BOD for fulfilling thier duties and obligations to the owners in exposing that our costs are out of control.
I give zero value to  WOH points...a devaluation of expensive points.  I own 2 weeks.  I am not a portfolio or points trader that uses Suset.  I can understand their negativity with the possibility that another jewel in HRC may be lost.
You comment on heistler. He was elected with those credentials known.  Does your conflict of interest accusations imply that the values will increase and more units will be available when Hyatt can no longer exercise ROFR....


----------



## SteveinHNL

ScoopLV said:


> I've done that. But then I want more pastrami/corned beef on rye, salami, and dim sum.
> 
> Taiwan is about the same flight time -- and they have the real Din Tai Fung dim sum joint. So there's that.
> 
> And Molinari's in SF is as good as anything on Arthur Ave. But New York still has a year's worth of sports, museums, concerts and similar. I'd still do it if I could find someone whose dream is "be a Hawaiian coffee rancher for a year," I'd make that trade -- lopsided though it may be.


Honolulu has a lot of good dim sum places and in fact the varieties of food in Hawaii are world class imo. However we do fall short in the NY deli area!!


----------



## SteveinHNL

INCHWORM said:


> AGREED!
> How do we get the rest of the voters who might not see this forum to join in voting NO?
> 
> Will they realize that there should be no rush by the BOD to push through such a major decision WITHOUT defining what the future of SH will be without Hyatt affiliation (that would look pretty bleak IMO)
> We've been quite astonished by the rushed,  one-sided proposal by the BOD.
> We believe that the options available by retaining Hyatt affiliation/exchange are quite valuable and a  divorce from that will devalue the property IMO.
> But how can these alternative opinions and concerns be disseminated to all the voters (including those who might not visit this forum) for their consideration before they cast their vote? After all, the BOD had the bully pulpit via mass email for their one-sided presentation without opening it up for comments and debate.


Maybe write a counterpoint letter urging your “no” position and request/demand the board to circulate it to aoao members.  They may have a fiduciary duty to allow and facilitate owners to present opposing viewpoints to voice and protect their owners’ interests.


----------



## SteveinHNL

magicjourney said:


> It's coming... Just received the email:
> 
> Dear Sunset Harbor Owners:
> 
> The Board of Directors of Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association requests your support for major, positive change at our resort. After many years of struggling with our management company (Hyatt Vacation Management) predominantly with pushback, the Board has determined that we need to move in a new direction that will benefit all owners.
> 
> Following much consideration, your Board recommends to owners to vote “yes” on two significant questions: (1) whether to terminate our Hyatt Management Contract and (2) whether to terminate our Hyatt Residence Club Resort Agreement.
> 
> These two questions will be on the ballot for a Special Meeting of Members of our Association to be held on Thursday, July 14th at 1:00pm EDT.
> 
> The Board has noted the following important reasons to terminate our contracts:
> 
> A vote to terminate the Management Contract is a vote:
> 
> to take back full control of our property;
> to eliminate excessive management fees; and
> to contract with new management which will work solely for the benefit of owners.
> 
> A vote to terminate the Club Resort Agreement is a vote:
> 
> to eliminate substantial Club Fees which the Board believes do not benefit most owners;
> to eliminate the Club’s use of our property for transient 1-to-2-night reservations;
> to eliminate the Club’s requirement each year for owners to reserve or lose the right to use their deeded Unit Weeks; and
> to terminate owner use of the Club’s points-based reservation and exchange system and related services which is reviewed in the Appendix to this letter.
> 
> The Board believes that termination of the Management Contract and Club Resort Agreement will allow our Association to market our Resort and the benefits of ownership as we seek to improve the demand for and value of Unit Weeks.
> 
> The Board also projects that termination of the Management Contract and Club Resort Agreement will eliminate meaningful expense, including $325,000 of annual Club Fees and a significant portion of current management fees and management overhead.
> 
> A more in-depth review of the Board’s reasoning in recommending termination of both contracts, and responses to questions you may have, are set forth in an Appendix to this letter.



What are the chances that this could also happen at Diamond Pointe as I am currently in the process of purchasing a Diamond week there and would not do so if it were not part of HRC?


----------



## Pathways

INCHWORM said:


> ill they realize that there should be no rush by the BOD to push through such a major decision WITHOUT defining what the future of SH will be without Hyatt affiliation (that would look pretty bleak IMO)
> We've been quite astonished by the rushed, one-sided proposal by the BOD.


This was tonque-in-cheek correct? I mean, this discussion has been going on for more than 4 YEARS! How many years of discussion would satisfy you to not call it a 'rush'?

One-sided?  There are only two sides - the status quo or not.  Hyatt has made that clear over the years. I the case of HSH, the BOD found easy answers to most of their questions about this process, just look at Aspen where they just completed this process.

Vote yes, vote no, I don't care, let's just have a vote.  This issue has been dragging on for FAR too long and just needs to be resolved so as owners we can move on.

I want to hang around the pool  and discuss how great our resort is, and how lucky we are to spend a week in KW. Not worry about the inevitable complaining about Hyatt.

The process of dropping the management needs to occur when the contract renewal window is up. The BOD has everything timed, it's one shot only.

If the vote is no, then we can finally just move on.  Again, my hope continues to be that Hyatt sees the writing on the wall, and changes at least some of their pain points.

Hyatt has to know when HKB gets their BOD this topic will be one of the first.  Owners at HKB love their resort, but are quite unhappy with the way their 2200 points trades within the HRC system.  Let's be real, sales always sold their weeks with the idea of buying cheap and using at KB. The owners at HKB, like HSH, almost never turn their weeks into points. But the fees they continue to pay anyway will soon approach $200 /yr/wk.

The HKB developer has REFUSED Hyatt's demand that they join the points club. If Hyatt gets their own reps on the BOD, I would guess their first order of business when contractually allowed will be to join the PP.


----------



## Pathways

SteveinHNL said:


> What are the chances that this could also happen at Diamond Pointe as I am currently in the process of purchasing a Diamond week there and would not do so if it were not part of HRC?


Resorts are owned collectively by all the individual owners. The BOD (voted in by the owners) hires a management company.  Management companies can be voted out. (And management companies part of these large groups can kick out individual resorts)

So any resort can leave the group they are aligned with.  It doesn't happen very often, b/c  many times (most?) the group (Marriott - Hilton - Wyndham and so on) own a large enough block of weeks themselves to vote in the board members they want, either their own employees, or someone they know will vote their way.

Another reason why TUGgers always say - 'buy where you want to go'.  That can never be taken away.


----------



## dioxide45

Pathways said:


> This was tonque-in-cheek correct? I mean, this discussion has been going on for more than 4 YEARS! How many years of discussion would satisfy you to not call it a 'rush'?


While discussion has been ongoing, it seems this may be the first time some owners are hearing about this. Has there been any previous official communication from the board to the owners about the issues with Hyatt management?


----------



## SteveinHNL

Pathways said:


> Resorts are owned collectively by all the individual owners. The BOD (voted in by the owners) hires a management company.  Management companies can be voted out.
> 
> So any resort can leave the group they are aligned with.  It doesn't happen very often, b/c  many times (most?) the group (Marriott - Hilton - Wyndham and so on) own a large enough block of weeks themselves to vote in the board members they want, either their own employees, or someone they know will vote their way.
> 
> Another reason why TUGgers always say - 'buy where you want to go'.  That can never be taken away.



Does anyone have any information about whether Marriott owns a sufficiently large number of weeks at Windward Pointe so that this resort remains part of the HRC system?  I would love to buy where I want to visit, but don’t have the $$ it would cost to buy a diamond week at HHS.


----------



## Kal

INCHWORM said:


> As owners of multiple HRC contracts (including 4 in KW) we were EXTREMELY distressed upon receiving the BOD email promoting exit from association with Hyatt. Why was this sent from Mr Heisler (who as a local timeshare resale agent might have conflict of interest) instead of the board president?


Don Heisler has provided SIGNIFICANT contributions to the owners.  As a resale agent he has reduced the number of foreclosed Sunset Harbor units to ZERO.  Without his valuable help, owners would have to carry their non-payment of maintenance fees.  Many of those units are horrible weeks that had little or no resale value.  Conflict??? Don, keep up the good work looking out for the owners.


----------



## Sapper

SteveinHNL said:


> Does anyone have any information about whether Marriott owns a sufficiently large number of weeks at Windward Pointe so that this resort remains part of the HRC system?  I would love to buy where I want to visit, but don’t have the $$ it would cost to buy a diamond week at HHS.



There was a very large quantity of unsold units at Windward when the HPP was developed. These units were dumped into HPP. HPP is controlled by Hyatt / MVC. Because of this relationship I do not see Windward ever leaving Hyatt’s control like Aspen and now Sunset.


----------



## RunCat

Pathways said:


> Another reason why TUGgers always say - 'buy where you want to go'.  That can never be taken away.


A little off-topic:  One of the "advantages" of a program like HVC (nee Welk) is that the resorts are owned by a Trust. Thus, the portfolio of the resorts cannot be easily changed. There are other issues with points programs but having resorts vote to leave is not one of the program is not one of them.


----------



## Pathways

SteveinHNL said:


> Does anyone have any information about whether Marriott owns a sufficiently large number of weeks at Windward Pointe so that this resort remains part of the HRC system?  I would love to buy where I want to visit, but don’t have the $$ it would cost to buy a diamond week at HHS.


Both BH and WP IMOH have zero chance of leaving HRC.  Hyatt (Marriott) owns A LOT of weeks at both. At one of the BOD meetings I attended, the meeting was dragging on b/c the Board would not vote for what the Hyatt reps wanted.  They finally took a 30 minute 'bathroom break'. Came back, voted unanimously to approve what Hyatt wanted. 

Also, a lot of owners at BH and WP bought when the MF's were WAY lower than SH, and I would suggest most owners at those two resorts do in fact use the HRC system to trade/reserve at other locations.


----------



## SteveinHNL

Thanks Sapper Pathways and RunCat those responses help me to feel more confident in using WP as an HRC gateway.


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> While discussion has been ongoing, it seems this may be the first time some owners are hearing about this. Has there been any previous official communication from the board to the owners about the issues with Hyatt management?


Hyatt controls all the communications.

An owner who doesn't stay at the resort, attend meetings, stay in touch with a board member, or make sure their email is given out, may not be aware.  Certainly some candidates for the BOD have run with this topic at the forefront.  But all official communications are 'edited' IMHO.




Kal said:


> Don Heisler has provided SIGNIFICANT contributions to the owners.  As a resale agent he has reduced the number of foreclosed Sunset Harbor units to ZERO.  Without his valuable help, owners would have to carry their non-payment of maintenance fees.  Many of those units are horrible weeks that had little or no resale value.  Conflict??? Don, keep up the good work looking out for the owners.


Hyatt for YEARS refused to resell BOD owned weeks for a 'reasonable' price. As owners, we had to cover for those nonpaying weeks.  Same, but even worse at BH and WP.  Hyatt sales would sell a HSH week for 30-40K, and 'throw in' a BH and WP week for a small additional outlay.

All to the detriment of the owners.   

The SH BOD finally ignored the Hyatt threats and took control of the weeks themselves. I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) the BOD put out a RFP for someone to broker the weeks, and the proposal from Don was the best deal for the owners.

I will say that without question Don has been a HUGE benefit to owners.


----------



## ScoopKona

Pathways said:


> Another reason why TUGgers always say - 'buy where you want to go'.  That can never be taken away.



If the system changes to the point I no longer want to have anything to do with it, I'll sell/give/quitclaim/default my week away. It owes me nothing at this point. I've paid considerably less, all-in, than renting hotel rooms. The "it's already paid for, so we may as well use it" aspect has encouraged us to visit far more places than not owning. 

I doubt I'll ever see Key West again. I wish I hadn't returned last time, but I had some ashes to spread.


----------



## Pathways

SteveinHNL said:


> Thanks Sapper Pathways and RunCat those responses help me to feel more confident in using WP as an HRC gateway.


I love the HRC resorts and their system. (I own at 7 different locations)  PP has always been the cheapest, WOR seems to have weeks at a good price point also.  (Purchase and MF combined).  Both BH and WP I think are good price point entries. 

Just remember, all timeshares are moving parts, things change just like the seasons. Some locations are just a major storm away from owners taking a huge hit.  (some already have). Some have values that are affected by (real or perceived) climate change and snow patterns.

Every timeshare I buy, I use a ten year plan. It must be rentable if I can't use it, sellable (even if just $1.00), and I assume after 10 years it will in-fact be worthless. 

Use your own criteria, but please have a plan.  A timeshare is an investment ONLY in your vacations!


----------



## SteveinHNL

Pathways said:


> I love the HRC resorts and their system. (I own at 7 different locations)  PP has always been the cheapest, WOR seems to have weeks at a good price point also.  (Purchase and MF combined).  Both BH and WP I think are good price point entries.
> 
> Just remember, all timeshares are moving parts, things change just like the seasons. Some locations are just a major storm away from owners taking a huge hit.  (some already have). Some have values that are affected by (real or perceived) climate change and snow patterns.
> 
> Every timeshare I buy, I use a ten year plan. It must be rentable if I can't use it, sellable (even if just $1.00), and I assume after 10 years it will in-fact be worthless.
> 
> Use your own criteria, but please have a plan.  A timeshare is an investment ONLY in your vacations!


Thanks for the wise words (this post and so many others).  We are super flexible, have some preferences (e.g., love Tahoe but happy going in silver weeks and even on relatively short (a few weeks) notice), but are not dead set on our preferences.  If we can’t get Tahoe, we would consider Colorado, Carmel, AZ, or perhaps flying to Key West.  Or transferring points to II and booking through that system.  Clearly a natural disaster that winds up doubling our MF would be a big disappointment but that seems to come with the territory of owning a TS in a beach area.  Even Maui could get hit hard by a hurricane as Kauai did a number of years ago.  As far as I can see, the one biggest key to our getting years of enjoyment from a WP diamond week is having it remain part of the HRC system.


----------



## Kal

Pathways said:


> I love the HRC resorts and their system. (I own at 7 different locations)  PP has always been the cheapest, WOR seems to have weeks at a good price point also.  (Purchase and MF combined).  Both BH and WP I think are good price point entries.
> 
> Just remember, all timeshares are moving parts, things change just like the seasons. Some locations are just a major storm away from owners taking a huge hit.  (some already have). Some have values that are affected by (real or perceived) climate change and snow patterns.
> 
> Every timeshare I buy, I use a ten year plan. It must be rentable if I can't use it, sellable (even if just $1.00), and I assume after 10 years it will in-fact be worthless.
> 
> Use your own criteria, but please have a plan.  A timeshare is an investment ONLY in your vacations!


So very true!  I took a tour of the Key West National Weather Service HQ in Key West.  The tour was off season and was led by the chief meteorologist in charge.  I asked what would happen to Key West with a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane?  He said the town would be leveled!  With only one bridge to enter the town, the age of the properties and foundation on marsh land, there's no hope.  That was an eye opener and gave me significant insecurity about owning Sunset Harbor.  Every year we watch the hurricane "string diagrams" and 90% of the time they are centered on Key West and the Keys.  It's just a matter of time.

Then there is climate change.  With the Gulf waters almost lapping on the property, the first floor is indeed at severe risk.  Take out the first floor, as was the case with Wilma, the resort is a bulls eye.  It's just a matter of time.

Use Puerto Rico as an example where Hyatt, by choice, did not have proper insurance coverage, the owners have to carry the burden...for years.  It will be the same for Key West.  So what's the answer????  Ostrich or Bail?

Another idea as an owner is to hope the resort is destroyed, and share the value of the undeveloped property with all the owners.  Hmmmm, a piece of waterfront property in a destroyed Key West might take 10 years to find a buyer.


----------



## ScoopKona

SteveinHNL said:


> As far as I can see, the one biggest key to our getting years of enjoyment from a WP diamond week is having it remain part of the HRC system.



I wouldn't worry about WP leaving Hyatt. It doesn't have the Old-town location. It's a lovely resort. The rooms are great. The view is stunning. And there's an airport next door. For that reason, loads and loads of owners trade. The typical sales pitch was, "Buy here, trade Aspen/SH/Carmel." I have a feeling that's what most owners are doing. 

My biggest gripe about WP and BH isn't the locations -- it's the lack of a lock off. I don't need it because I'll never stay there. But the lockout allows anyone traveling without children to use what they own AND trade out the spare. Best of all worlds in my opinion.


----------



## SteveinHNL

ScoopLV said:


> I wouldn't worry about WP leaving Hyatt. It doesn't have the Old-town location. It's a lovely resort. The rooms are great. The view is stunning. And there's an airport next door. For that reason, loads and loads of owners trade. The typical sales pitch was, "Buy here, trade Aspen/SH/Carmel." I have a feeling that's what most owners are doing.
> 
> My biggest gripe about WP and BH isn't the locations -- it's the lack of a lock off. I don't need it because I'll never stay there. But the lockout allows anyone traveling without children to use what they own AND trade out the spare. Best of all worlds in my opinion.


Agreed it would be best to have a lock off. But if we travel there we would probably bring another couple to maximize the unit.  And my guess is if we ever actually went there it would not be to use our own week but trading into a lesser week so we can have excess points to use for additional stays elsewhere!


----------



## bizaro86

ScoopLV said:


> I wouldn't worry about WP leaving Hyatt. It doesn't have the Old-town location. It's a lovely resort. The rooms are great. The view is stunning. And there's an airport next door. For that reason, loads and loads of owners trade. The typical sales pitch was, "Buy here, trade Aspen/SH/Carmel." I have a feeling that's what most owners are doing.
> 
> My biggest gripe about WP and BH isn't the locations -- it's the lack of a lock off. I don't need it because I'll never stay there. But the lockout allows anyone traveling without children to use what they own AND trade out the spare. Best of all worlds in my opinion.



WP and BH will never leave Hyatt because of the weeks in the trust where Hyatt controls the vote. Combine that with the people who will never vote on anything and the management fee there could go to 35% and they'd still be safe.


----------



## ScoopKona

Kal said:


> Another idea as an owner is to hope the resort is destroyed, and share the value of the undeveloped property with all the owners.  Hmmmm, a piece of waterfront property in a destroyed Key West might take 10 years to find a buyer.



I sincerely hope no storms hit the Keys for the rest of the century. It's my home town after all.

That being said, it's only a matter of time. And when it happens, the Keys should not be rebuilt at all. Same with the outer banks and the parts of Louisiana which are below sea level. I have the same gripe with the Californians who have rebuilt their fire-destroyed house five times over the past 20 years. MOVE! Move to where the fires aren't happening. Eventually insurance companies and FEMA are going to have to tell people who live at ground zero of a warming planet that they are on their own if anything happens.

The biggest part of my calculus to leave Key West was the storms. When I was a boy, we'd get a tropical storm every year or two. A hurricane every three or four. And it was always Cat 1 or 2. Big storms happened, sure. The Camilles and Andrews and similar. But with satellites, we had plenty of time to get out if necessary.

When I left we were getting five tropical storms a year and one or two hurricanes -- either a close call or a good graze. My friends who are still there have been required to replace their drywall twice in the 21st century. Sea water already bubbles up around the island at high tide with no storms at all! I think it's inevitable that nature is going to scour all evidence of human habitation from the Keys (just like Labor Day, 1935 in Islamorada). And the Keys will be a boat-to location for liveaboard sailors.


----------



## Kal

One one storm event in Key West (not a hurricane or major storm) I saw a guy walking down Duval with a life preserver ring around his neck.  So I thought is it a profound message? or just Duval attire by a soothsayer?


----------



## INCHWORM

Pathways said:


> I love the HRC resorts and their system. (I own at 7 different locations)  PP has always been the cheapest, WOR seems to have weeks at a good price point also.  (Purchase and MF combined).  Both BH and WP I think are good price point entries.
> 
> Just remember, all timeshares are moving parts, things change just like the seasons. Some locations are just a major storm away from owners taking a huge hit.  (some already have). Some have values that are affected by (real or perceived) climate change and snow patterns.
> 
> Every timeshare I buy, I use a ten year plan. It must be rentable if I can't use it, sellable (even if just $1.00), and I assume after 10 years it will in-fact be worthless.
> 
> Use your own criteria, but please have a plan.  A timeshare is an investment ONLY in your vacations!



I've never thought of timeshare purchase as anything BUT access to vacation and Hyatt system has made that even more worthwhile with trade availability between our multiple properties (owning at 7 different locations).
And for whomever thinks WOH points are worthless,  you won't convince me after I've enjoyed my stays in London (Great Scotland Yard), Napa (Alila), Big Sur (Alila), Paris (Park Hyatt Vendome) and Amsterdam (Andaz), Maui (Andaz) for weeks of stays and tens of thousands of dollars in value (all for free using WOH points). So if you're not getting value from WOH points,  you simply don't know how/where to use them or you don't travel much! (Check out "The Points Guy" site - he likes WOH points just like me)

Next...Re; Don Heisler...he may be a terrific guy and may have helped many people...I don't know him. However,  the definition of conflict of interest is that someone may have a financial interest or benefit from a certain transaction/action. Under these circumstances I believe he would meet that definition (irregardless of any of his potential good will, good deeds, etc) and I was previously inquiring about why the original email came from Mr. Heisler as opposed to the BOD president?
As for the urgency/rush...apparently SOME of you seem to think this has been in the works for 3-4 years? While for others of us who use the pool area to swim, sunbathe and relax (instead of engaging in the latest complaining du jour), we were blindsided by this BOD email and rush to vote.  Apparently,  the squeaky wheel gets greased and those who were complaining (for years, I presume???) seem to want a knee jerk  reaction of "let's get out" WITHOUT a definition from the BOD as to what it looks like on the other side of "getting out".
As one person on this site indicated,  they did not even want to pursue their purchase of a unit at one of the locations unless they knew it would continue as part of HRC.
I'm having a hard time digesting the short sightedness of some who say they NEVER trade their weeks...just wait...things change,  life can throw curveballs and plans can change year to year. 
I'd be relieved if the BOD would open their email to comments and discussion in a forum emailed to ALL members and allow that BEFORE voting!
This is a major decision even if you don't typically do anything except use your owner week...things can change in your life and you might need alternative options in the future (and RCI would NOT be of any value in the future IMHO)


----------



## ScoopKona

Kal said:


> One one storm event in Key West (not a hurricane or major storm) I saw a guy walking down Duval with a life preserver ring around his neck.  So I thought is it a profound message? or just Duval attire by a soothsayer?



The Weather Channel is an object of mockery during storm season. We really do loathe them. One of my friends mooned the reporter talking about "35mph gusts already." Standing in front of La Concha with a massive fan to make it look worse than it is.

Just an incessant drumbeat of fear -- to the point I left my phone off the hook because I was sick of taking "why are you still there" calls.

But that doesn't mean the big one isn't a real possibility, and soon. Andrew was no joke. And my friends who evacuated to Homestead and Florida City got walloped. One of my coworkers died. Katrina and Wilma were both direct hits. And either one of them could have intensified to a Cat-5 in the hours before making landfall.

It would not surprise me if a new category is added: Cat-5+ -- A hurricane that stays in the upper range of Cat-5. The hammer of the gods, basically.


----------



## bnoble

ScoopLV said:


> The Weather Channel


In our house, we refer to TWC as "The Plague and Locusts Channel."

On that note:


----------



## chrisbellows

dioxide45 said:


> While discussion has been ongoing, it seems this may be the first time some owners are hearing about this. Has there been any previous official communication from the board to the owners about the issues with Hyatt management?


I've been an owner for 20 years and spend about 8 weeks at Sunset each year (plus 4 additional weeks at Beach House and Windward) and have never heard anything about this.   So I'm sure there are many others unaware of this issue or its implications.


----------



## ScoopKona

chrisbellows said:


> I've been an owner for 20 years and spend about 8 weeks at Sunset each year (plus 4 additional weeks at Beach House and Windward) and have never heard anything about this.   So I'm sure there are many others unaware of this issue or its implications.



That's $1200 just in Interval fees you'll save annually.


----------



## Kal

ScoopLV said:


> That's $1200 just in Interval fees you'll save annually.


That's almost like real money


----------



## bizaro86

chrisbellows said:


> I've been an owner for 20 years and spend about 8 weeks at Sunset each year (plus 4 additional weeks at Beach House and Windward) and have never heard anything about this.   So I'm sure there are many others unaware of this issue or its implications.



You seem like someone who should be jumping with joy over this. If it passes you'll save on management fees/corporate overhead, plus club fees, without losing anything you actually use.

Even if at some point you did want to vacation elsewhere I strongly suspect you'd get equal or better value via rental or trading directly through II/Third Home than you would via HRC, and you'd only need to pay membership fees if you wanted to actually use them.

Seems to me voting yes, even if you weren't previously aware of the issues, is a no-brainer.


----------



## jabberwocky

INCHWORM said:


> I've never thought of timeshare purchase as anything BUT access to vacation and Hyatt system has made that even more worthwhile with trade availability between our multiple properties (owning at 7 different locations).
> And for whomever thinks WOH points are worthless,  you won't convince me after I've enjoyed my stays in London (Great Scotland Yard), Napa (Alila), Big Sur (Alila), Paris (Park Hyatt Vendome) and Amsterdam (Andaz), Maui (Andaz) for weeks of stays and tens of thousands of dollars in value (all for free using WOH points). So if you're not getting value from WOH points,  you simply don't know how/where to use them or you don't travel much! (Check out "The Points Guy" site - he likes WOH points just like me)
> 
> Next...Re; Don Heisler...he may be a terrific guy and may have helped many people...I don't know him. However,  the definition of conflict of interest is that someone may have a financial interest or benefit from a certain transaction/action. Under these circumstances I believe he would meet that definition (irregardless of any of his potential good will, good deeds, etc) and I was previously inquiring about why the original email came from Mr. Heisler as opposed to the BOD president?
> As for the urgency/rush...apparently SOME of you seem to think this has been in the works for 3-4 years? While for others of us who use the pool area to swim, sunbathe and relax (instead of engaging in the latest complaining du jour), we were blindsided by this BOD email and rush to vote.  Apparently,  the squeaky wheel gets greased and those who were complaining (for years, I presume???) seem to want a knee jerk  reaction of "let's get out" WITHOUT a definition from the BOD as to what it looks like on the other side of "getting out".
> As one person on this site indicated,  they did not even want to pursue their purchase of a unit at one of the locations unless they knew it would continue as part of HRC.
> I'm having a hard time digesting the short sightedness of some who say they NEVER trade their weeks...just wait...things change,  life can throw curveballs and plans can change year to year.
> I'd be relieved if the BOD would open their email to comments and discussion in a forum emailed to ALL members and allow that BEFORE voting!
> This is a major decision even if you don't typically do anything except use your owner week...things can change in your life and you might need alternative options in the future (and RCI would NOT be of any value in the future IMHO)


Welcome to TUG. 

The more I read your posts I’m wondering if you have any conflicts of interest to declare. Several of the points you are making sound the same as someone who is on the inside at Hyatt would be making.

For example, while I agree WOH is a great program (I’m Globalist), but it’s pretty much recognized universally that exchanging your week for hotel points is a terrible deal. The only people who seem to push this idea are those in TS sales.

I would find your arguments more convincing if they focused on why the status quo is so much better (including why separate club fees for each week owned are acceptable), rather than trying to attack the process and integrity of the other side.

And just to be clear - I’m not a Hyatt TS owner (I do own some stock in VAC which is the parent of the management company).  From what I’ve read here on TUG the owners here do seem they have some legitimate points for wanting to exit.


----------



## AJCts411

INCHWORM said:


> Next...Re; Don Heisler...he may be a terrific guy and may have helped many people...I don't know him. However,  the definition of conflict of interest is that someone may have a financial interest or benefit from a certain transaction/action. Under these circumstances I believe he would meet that definition (irregardless of any of his potential good will, good deeds, etc) and I was previously inquiring about why the original email came from Mr. Heisler as opposed to the BOD president?





INCHWORM said:


> I've never thought of timeshare purchase as anything BUT access to vacation and Hyatt system has made that even more worthwhile with trade availability between our multiple properties (owning at 7 different locations).
> And for whomever thinks WOH points are worthless,  you won't convince me after I've enjoyed my stays in London (Great Scotland Yard), Napa (Alila), Big Sur (Alila), Paris (Park Hyatt Vendome) and Amsterdam (Andaz), Maui (Andaz) for weeks of stays and tens of thousands of dollars in value (all for free using WOH points). So if you're not getting value from WOH points,  you simply don't know how/where to use them or you don't travel much! (Check out "The Points Guy" site - he likes WOH points just like me)
> 
> Next...Re; Don Heisler...he may be a terrific guy and may have helped many people...I don't know him. However,  the definition of conflict of interest is that someone may have a financial interest or benefit from a certain transaction/action. Under these circumstances I believe he would meet that definition (irregardless of any of his potential good will, good deeds, etc) and I was previously inquiring about why the original email came from Mr. Heisler as opposed to the BOD president?
> As for the urgency/rush...apparently SOME of you seem to think this has been in the works for 3-4 years? While for others of us who use the pool area to swim, sunbathe and relax (instead of engaging in the latest complaining du jour), we were blindsided by this BOD email and rush to vote.  Apparently,  the squeaky wheel gets greased and those who were complaining (for years, I presume???) seem to want a knee jerk  reaction of "let's get out" WITHOUT a definition from the BOD as to what it looks like on the other side of "getting out".
> As one person on this site indicated,  they did not even want to pursue their purchase of a unit at one of the locations unless they knew it would continue as part of HRC.
> I'm having a hard time digesting the short sightedness of some who say they NEVER trade their weeks...just wait...things change,  life can throw curveballs and plans can change year to year.
> I'd be relieved if the BOD would open their email to comments and discussion in a forum emailed to ALL members and allow that BEFORE voting!
> This is a major decision even if you don't typically do anything except use your owner week...things can change in your life and you might need alternative options in the future (and RCI would NOT be of any value in the future IMHO)


So by your definition Hyatt should not have   a seat on the board of directors?  
If you own a week and received the notice your question on why the President did not sign the email by the title of Heisler. 
Any BOD is tasked with getting the best value for the owners and oversight of budgets and fees. This BOD has done a great job.  
I will vote yes my choice based on the facts as presented and my preferences as an owner.   I can respect your a no vote for your reasons but to advance your no vote by impuning someone's reputation is not those of us who voted for the BOD should let go unchallanged.


----------



## Kal

jabberwocky said:


> Welcome to TUG.
> 
> The more I read your posts I’m wondering if you have any conflicts of interest to declare. Several of the points you are making sound the same as someone who is on the inside at Hyatt would be making.
> 
> For example, while I agree WOH is a great program (I’m Globalist), but it’s pretty much recognized universally that exchanging your week for hotel points is a terrible deal. The only people who seem to push this idea are those in TS sales.
> 
> I would find your arguments more convincing if they focused on why the status quo is so much better (including why separate club fees for each week owned are acceptable), rather than trying to attack the process and integrity of the other side.
> 
> And just to be clear - I’m not a Hyatt TS owner (I do own some stock in VAC which is the parent of the management company).  From what I’ve read here on TUG the owners here do seem they have some legitimate points for wanting to exit.


I was thinking the same thing....sounds like someone from Hyatt.  The only people I know who advocate trading a 2BR resort unit for a hotel room are those on the other side of the table at an "owners update" meeting.  Maybe we can ask the poster to tell us what HSH unit/weeks he owns.  Skin in the game.


----------



## bizaro86

Kal said:


> I was thinking the same thing....sounds like someone from Hyatt.  The only people I know who advocate trading a 2BR resort unit for a hotel room are those on the other side of the table at an "owners update" meeting.  Maybe we can ask the poster to tell us what HSH unit/weeks he owns.  Skin in the game.



The big tell for me that someone is either associated with sales or has drunk the Kool aid from sales so much that they might as well be is referring to points/stays from trading in a TS week as "free." They certainly aren't free, you traded the value of the week for them. I'm not sure what rental of a Sunset Harbor week is but I bet it's enough that the "free" stays aren't such a great deal after all, especially with the recent WoH devaluation. 

Some people prefer to calculate using cost, ie cost of points = MF of the week + a capitalized portion of the purchase price, which is also valid.


----------



## AJCts411

bizaro86 said:


> The big tell for me that someone is either associated with sales or has drunk the Kool aid from sales so much that they might as well be is referring to points/stays from trading in a TS week as "free." They certainly aren't free, you traded the value of the week for them. I'm not sure what rental of a Sunset Harbor week is but I bet it's enough that the "free" stays aren't such a great deal after all, especially with the recent WoH devaluation.
> 
> Some people prefer to calculate using cost, ie cost of points = MF of the week + a capitalized portion of the purchase price, which is also valid.


Rents for around $500 a night in gold.   KW rental is skyrocketing.    

To comment on those hurricanes.  Irma almost a direct hit...talking heads of the day called it a cat 4.   There are something like 2080 weeks.  Believe insurance is 2 million deductible.  Maybe some one else can verify.  So that's less than $1000 each week for a major repair bill.


----------



## Kal

AJCts411 said:


> Rents for around $500 a night in gold.   KW rental is skyrocketing.
> 
> To comment on those hurricanes.  Irma almost a direct hit...talking heads of the day called it a cat 4.   There are something like 2080 weeks.  Believe insurance is 2 million deductible.  Maybe some one else can verify.  So that's less than $1000 each week for a major repair bill.


Need to check with PR owners to see the real impact.  Resort shut down for years and maintenance fees.


----------



## dioxide45

AJCts411 said:


> Rents for around $500 a night in gold.   KW rental is skyrocketing.
> 
> To comment on those hurricanes.  Irma almost a direct hit...talking heads of the day called it a cat 4.   There are something like 2080 weeks.  Believe insurance is 2 million deductible.  Maybe some one else can verify.  So that's less than $1000 each week for a major repair bill.


The HOA should probably have at least 50% of that deductible set aside in reserve so they won't have to hit everyone with a $1K special assessment should there be significant damage. They can probably make up the other 50% out of reserves already set aside for repairs and refurbishments that won't be needed as the repairs would probably set back any refurbishment schedule by several more years.


----------



## bizaro86

dioxide45 said:


> The HOA should probably have at least 50% of that deductible set aside in reserve so they won't have to hit everyone with a $1K special assessment should there be significant damage. They can probably make up the other 50% out of reserves already set aside for repairs and refurbishments that won't be needed as the repairs would probably set back any refurbishment schedule by several more years.



I wonder if there are any high and increasing line items in the budget they could cut to allow them to fund something like that without increasing fees...


----------



## pbrockman1

JanT said:


> I don’t see myself voting for this without more information. I hate this kind of crap and wish I’d gotten rid of my weeks.



Respectfully- while this might seem like an overwhelming situation, you could think about —if you were to sell now, with Marriott ownership your unit values have continued to decline due to their emphasis on using points (diluting inventory). By terminating our contract with a behemoth timeshare company, we have the opportunity of positioning our timeshares in market that values our highly sought after location in Key West & of course, our highly sought after location in the US. Thus allowing for a fair market value. Vote Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ScoopKona

Kal said:


> Need to check with PR owners to see the real impact.  Resort shut down for years and maintenance fees.



When the Labor Day Hurricane hit Islamorada, the town was scoured basically down to sand. Partial structures remained. The train was tossed about like a toy. That was the end of the Overseas Railroad.

If that kind of storm hits Key West, we're probably all going to split the insurance settlement and walk away.


----------



## INCHWORM

Kal said:


> I was thinking the same thing....sounds like someone from Hyatt.  The only people I know who advocate trading a 2BR resort unit for a hotel room are those on the other side of the table at an "owners update" meeting.  Maybe we can ask the poster to tell us what HSH unit/weeks he owns.  Skin in the game.



No ...not a Hyatt insider, Hyatt representative nor Hyatt employee. NEVER worked in the real estate industry or any related business so NO conflicts of interest here just FYI. I DO have a clear understanding of value and I have indeed stayed at ALL the Hyatt places I listed and stayed there ON points.  Yes, I  payed MF on those units I exchanged and also received extra WOH every time I  purchased a unit.  I can tell you I DO NOT use my WOH points unless the hotel property is charging in excess of $750 per night and I have literally had stays that would have exceeded $15,000 for 9 nights in Paris (where I was upgraded to a suite.) Plus numerous others stays in Europe and the US exceeding tens of thousands of dollars!
So don't suggest I'm some sort of "insider" because I know how to use my points and my TS purchases. If I  sound enthusiastic it's because I really really like the HRC system and have used it to my FULL ADVANTAGE having had many fabulous vacations over the years. 
I have friends and relatives...some of whom have Wyndham, Marriott and Hilton. None are even remotely as satisfied with their systems as I am with Hyatt.  RCI is a crappy trading platform for them (according to them and by comparison to II offerings from what they tell me) And my Marriott friends literally HATE having to go on their site to fight for availability at exactly 12 or 13 months out and frequently not get what they want then my brother says they go on some other sight to try to trade for what they really wanted? I don't even understand how the heck their stuff works...I  just know they eventually purchased a couple Hyatt weeks eventually and are just as happy with Hyatt I am.
So accuse me of "drinking the kool-aid" if you want but in my case the "kool-aid" has quenched ALL MY VACATION THIRSTS in the highest end 5 star places.  I own at SH and the other KW properties and I don't think new buyers will be very enthusiastic about future purchases of SH weeks without Hyatt affiliation. Perhaps only those who want to add to their current weeks,  but eventually they'll all die out as we're all getting older. 
IMO exiting HRC will/would be a terrible choice. 
However,  as disappointed as I would be with such a move...I  am equally disappointed (as mentioned before) that the BOD presented a one sided look at this WITHOUT giving a concise detailed plan for the future.  There was a lot of "maybe this" and "possibly that" in the appendix without a clearly defined future for the SH property with the main idea being that it might save you a couple hundred dollars a year.  But what are sort of property are we left with after those (modest) MF savings??? Some place with no options for trade to alternate properties?  (and yes my grandkids DO like the other KW places better) or...For WOH points?

So extremely disappointed that the board didn't propose this a year ago (if discussion has been going on for years as one person suggested here) and allow civil discourse, questions,  comments,  debate to take place for many months on an owner's site and then schedule a vote after adequate time. Instead,  I was blindsided by this and apparently I wasn't the only one!
Just venting my extreme disappointment and also voting NO!


----------



## ScoopKona

INCHWORM said:


> Just venting my extreme disappointment and also voting NO!



I own in Key West but not at SH. Depending on what you have, and how the vote goes, I would be completely willing to trade my week for yours.

I think this is going to be a solid win for SH owners -- they're going to get basically everything they're getting now, with lower annual fees. 

And I am a former Hyatt timeshare salesman from Key West.


----------



## Kal

INCHWORM said:


> No ...not a Hyatt insider, Hyatt representative nor Hyatt employee. NEVER worked in the real estate industry or any related business so NO conflicts of interest here just FYI. I DO have a clear understanding of value and I have indeed stayed at ALL the Hyatt places I listed and stayed there ON points.  Yes, I  payed MF on those units I exchanged and also received extra WOH every time I  purchased a unit.  I can tell you I DO NOT use my WOH points unless the hotel property is charging in excess of $750 per night and I have literally had stays that would have exceeded $15,000 for 9 nights in Paris (where I was upgraded to a suite.) Plus numerous others stays in Europe and the US exceeding tens of thousands of dollars!
> So don't suggest I'm some sort of "insider" because I know how to use my points and my TS purchases. If I  sound enthusiastic it's because I really really like the HRC system and have used it to my FULL ADVANTAGE having had many fabulous vacations over the years.
> I have friends and relatives...some of whom have Wyndham, Marriott and Hilton. None are even remotely as satisfied with their systems as I am with Hyatt.  RCI is a crappy trading platform for them (according to them and by comparison to II offerings from what they tell me) And my Marriott friends literally HATE having to go on their site to fight for availability at exactly 12 or 13 months out and frequently not get what they want then my brother says they go on some other sight to try to trade for what they really wanted? I don't even understand how the heck their stuff works...I  just know they eventually purchased a couple Hyatt weeks eventually and are just as happy with Hyatt I am.
> So accuse me of "drinking the kool-aid" if you want but in my case the "kool-aid" has quenched ALL MY VACATION THIRSTS in the highest end 5 star places.  I own at SH and the other KW properties and I don't think new buyers will be very enthusiastic about future purchases of SH weeks without Hyatt affiliation. Perhaps only those who want to add to their current weeks,  but eventually they'll all die out as we're all getting older.
> IMO exiting HRC will/would be a terrible choice.
> However,  as disappointed as I would be with such a move...I  am equally disappointed (as mentioned before) that the BOD presented a one sided look at this WITHOUT giving a concise detailed plan for the future.  There was a lot of "maybe this" and "possibly that" in the appendix without a clearly defined future for the SH property with the main idea being that it might save you a couple hundred dollars a year.  But what are sort of property are we left with after those (modest) MF savings??? Some place with no options for trade to alternate properties?  (and yes my grandkids DO like the other KW places better) or...For WOH points?
> 
> So extremely disappointed that the board didn't propose this a year ago (if discussion has been going on for years as one person suggested here) and allow civil discourse, questions,  comments,  debate to take place for many months on an owner's site and then schedule a vote after adequate time. Instead,  I was blindsided by this and apparently I wasn't the only one!
> Just venting my extreme disappointment and also voting NO!


Methinks thou protest too much


----------



## JanT

I don't think it's overwhelming.  That isn't what I said.  I simply said I don't have patience for this kind of thing and I sure as heck am not going to just push the button on "Yes" because a few people think it's what I should do.  I'm not voting "Yes" on something I'm not convinced is the right thing for me or for the resort.  I don't think it's been sufficiently explained what the value is in leaving HRC.  That hasn't been made clear at all.  What do the owners that are pro-leave HRC or the Board of Directors think they can do so differently that makes this such a great idea?  I haven't seen that laid out.

Maybe most owners ALWAYS use their weeks at SH.  Not everyone does and just because they choose to use their SH points to go to other resorts within HRC or even in II, that doesn't make them foolish or unwise masters of timesharing.  It means they bought their weeks with the express intent of using them however THEY want.  Maybe they like the internal trading power to get to resorts like Hyatt Siesta Key that are impossible to trade into otherwise, maybe they like the power their SH week brings in II.  Maybe the fees don't bother them or maybe the fees do bother them, but they just lump that in with the "it's part of what I pay to go on vacation."  It comes down to it's no one else's business what those owners want to do with their week(s), and they shouldn't be at the whim of other owners who want to park their butts at Sunset Harbor for the same experience year after year.  If that's what other owners want to do, good on them and it's their right.  If they don't like the fees, then they can decide if they want to own at SH or invest in the Galleon or the Banyan or someplace else in Key West.  Just like other owners have the right to set out on other adventures in the years they don't go to SH.  

I'm not sure if you're implying that by voting "yes" I'm increasing the value of my weeks at SH. I truly hope you're not trying to convince me that splitting from HRC is going to magically make my weeks more valuable because really....that's just nonsense. Timeshares have never been any kind of financial investment and splitting from HRC isn't going to change that. It's an investment in my peace of mind, in my vacation time. I've never once thought I was going to make money if I wanted to sell my weeks (whatever I owned).

I've already contacted a member of the Board of Directors, inquiring as to whether they have a contingent plan to repurchase weeks from owners who no longer want to own at SH if the split from HRC comes to fruition.  I'm sure I know what the answer is to that but we'll see.  The BoD should have some sense that not all owners are going to be happy about a split from HRC and might want to bail out.  It should be willing to repurchase those weeks if an owner wants to bail out.  Because based on your comments about how great it will be if we leave HRC and MVC behind, they should jump on that since they will be able to resell those weeks at a profit.



pbrockman1 said:


> Respectfully- while this might seem like an overwhelming situation, you could think about —if you were to sell now, with Marriott ownership your unit values have continued to decline due to their emphasis on using points (diluting inventory). By terminating our contract with a behemoth timeshare company, we have the opportunity of positioning our timeshares in market that values our highly sought after location in Key West & of course, our highly sought after location in the US. Thus allowing for a fair market value. Vote Yes
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JanT

ScoopLV, I know you're a seasoned past Hyatt salesman.  Sometimes I wonder if you aren't the salesman we bought our original week from because seriously, you seem so much like him in your verbiage, etc.  LoL  He was great!

I'm curious as to how you think SH owners are going to get basically everything they're getting now if the resort splits from HRC.  They're not going to be able to trade internally to HRC resorts (which some like to do).  Who knows what exchange company they will go with?  RCI??  Dear Lord.....in general, RCI doesn't have the level or resorts someone who owns at SH would consider fair trades.  At least not from what I can tell.  And even if it stays with II, do you really think SH is going to be any more powerful in II than it currently is?  I'm sorry but I just don't see the advantages or splitting from HRC other than lowered fees?  I see a lot of disadvantages.



ScoopLV said:


> I own in Key West but not at SH. Depending on what you have, and how the vote goes, I would be completely willing to trade my week for yours.
> 
> I think this is going to be a solid win for SH owners -- they're going to get basically everything they're getting now, with lower annual fees.
> 
> And I am a former Hyatt timeshare salesman from Key West.


----------



## INCHWORM

Kal said:


> Methinks thou protest too much


Seriously???
I've had enough of your ludicrous accusations...go jump in a...


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> ScoopLV, I know you're a seasoned past Hyatt salesman.  Sometimes I wonder if you aren't the salesman we bought our original week from because seriously, you seem so much like him in your verbiage, etc.  LoL  He was great!



Shoot me a private message with what your guy looked like. If I'm not him, I surely know him. I have a pretty good feeling that it was either me or the friend who got me hired there.

As for the HRC secession. If it happens, most of the owners won't be affected AT ALL. They use what they own. If anyone trades SH, they will find people who own elsewhere who will enthusiastically trade up to SH. And SH is going to trade like a monster so long as Key West still stands. It's win, win for everyone except the people who bought SH to trade exclusively to other HRC properties -- and that number must be  very, very low indeed.


----------



## Digdot

Kal said:


> That's almost like real money


I only hope the cost saving promises on the voting letter come true and are not bogus as I suspect


----------



## echino

Digdot said:


> I only hope the cost saving promises on the voting letter come true and are not bogus as I suspect



$157 per week club dues will be gone if the resort is no longer in the HRC - that's the only one that's guaranteed. Management fee and other expenses are very likely to go down too, but not guaranteed.


----------



## Digdot

Digdot said:


> I only hope the cost saving promises on the voting letter come true and are not bogus as I suspect


Also,has anyone out there heard how much this move would cost us?
My sense is that our dues will go up considerably


----------



## JanT

I haven’t heard a word about that.  There’s A LOT of unknowns here and I don’t like it.



Digdot said:


> Also,has anyone out there heard how much this move would cost us?
> My sense is that our dues will go up considerably


----------



## TravelTime

A few questions:
-Does the Board have any idea of what management company or companies they will consider using instead?
-Does the Board have a proposed new budget and how much money they will actually save for owners?

I think without answers to the questions above, the Board is acting prematurely and not providing owners with enough information to make a decision. Getting rid of the club fee does not mean the new management company can lower MFs overall and, if they do, how would that affect quality? Is this a “penny saved, pound foolish” strategy?

Other questions:
-Does the Board know what percentage of owners use their SH points to go to other HRC resorts?
-Does the Board know how many owners rent their units?
-What hard data does the Board have about SH owners and their usage patterns?
-Is it mainly anecdotal that the majority of SH owners use their weeks?
-How will changing management and leaving Hyatt change some of the problems cited in this thread like renters trashing unit?
-How do Galleon or Banyon compare to SH in terms of MFs and quality?

I agree with @JanT above that SH would need to stay in II. RCI does not have any quality resorts and they have been losing the higher quality resorts they did have.

Also agree that owners really should just consider the club fee as the cost of a week. If the overall management by Hyatt is good and the MF is reasonable including that fee, then switching management companies risks messing up the resort rather than fixing it.


----------



## Digdot

echino said:


> $157 per week club dues will be gone if the resort is no longer in the HRC - that's the only one that's guaranteed. Management fee and other expenses are very likely to go down too, but not guaranteed.


Hi there
You seem to be in the know 
Did you hear how much this breakaway will cost us?
I haven’t heard anything 
I would have thought that the price tag would have been disclosed by our BOD as I think it’s important information for me to make an intelligent decision


----------



## echino

Digdot said:


> Hi there
> You seem to be in the know
> Did you hear how much this breakaway will cost us?
> I haven’t heard anything
> I would have thought that the price tag would have been disclosed by our BOD as I think it’s important information for me to make an intelligent decision



No idea, I don't own at Sunset Harbor. I own at Windward Pointe. So I don't have a say in the matter. I just hope whatever the outcome is, Hyatt at least reacts by eliminating the club dues on the second owned week, and just charges $157 once per owner, regardless of the number of weeks owned, just like other timeshare systems do.


----------



## Digdot

pbrockman1 said:


> Respectfully- while this might seem like an overwhelming situation, you could think about —if you were to sell now, with Marriott ownership your unit values have continued to decline due to their emphasis on using points (diluting inventory). By terminating our contract with a behemoth timeshare company, we have the opportunity of positioning our timeshares in market that values our highly sought after location in Key West & of course, our highly sought after location in the US. Thus allowing for a fair market value. Vote Yes
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


FYI
There are SH timeshares listed on Redweek now for over 15000
The values appear to be rising on their own 
Could be cause the rents in KW are off the charts
I would not sell my weeks as I stay for more than a week in a one bedroom 
I stay 11 nights!
That’s bang for the buck for sure


----------



## Digdot

echino said:


> No idea, I don't own at Sunset Harbor. I own at Windward Pointe. So I don't have a say in the matter. I just hope whatever the outcome is, Hyatt at least reacts by eliminating the club dues on the second owned week, and just charges $157 once per owner, regardless of the number of weeks owned, just like other timeshare systems do.


That makes good sense


----------



## Digdot

Digdot said:


> That makes good sense


If we vote no to terminate them and preserve our flexibility then we should all push Marriott to only charge one week for club dues on all weeks owned
If you are able to shed some light on the total expense of this potential ouster,I’d appreciate you letting me know 
Thanks


----------



## Digdot

JanT said:


> ScoopLV, I know you're a seasoned past Hyatt salesman.  Sometimes I wonder if you aren't the salesman we bought our original week from because seriously, you seem so much like him in your verbiage, etc.  LoL  He was great!
> 
> I'm curious as to how you think SH owners are going to get basically everything they're getting now if the resort splits from HRC.  They're not going to be able to trade internally to HRC resorts (which some like to do).  Who knows what exchange company they will go with?  RCI??  Dear Lord.....in general, RCI doesn't have the level or resorts someone who owns at SH would consider fair trades.  At least not from what I can tell.  And even if it stays with II, do you really think SH is going to be any more powerful in II than it currently is?  I'm sorry but I just don't see the advantages or splitting from HRC other than lowered fees?  I see a lot of disadvantages.


Agree. And Lower fees not guaranteed and not explained


----------



## dioxide45

While Hyatt has a management fee of 15%, this isn't really out of line when compared to Marriott Vacation Club. Yes, MVC has only a 10% management fee at most domestic USA resorts, but Marriott calculates that fee on the total maintenance fee (including reserves and taxes). Based on prior posts here, it seems that Hyatt only collects it on the operating fee. Where Hyatt does stand out is that they collect the management fee against the Club Fee. Something that neither Vistana or Marriott do.


----------



## dioxide45

Another thing that comes up is when a resort becomes independant, they move away from certain brand standards that existed under previous management. So they may opt for an eight year refurbishment cycle instead of five. That means that you don't get the same level of quality you once paid for. They start to only swap out an appliance when the previous one breaks instead of a full refurbishment on a cycle. This all in the name of reducing costs. Sure the new standard might be sufficient for some or many, but it is also not what people bought in for originally. People will say now that it won't happen, but look back 20 years from now and I can pretty much guarantee you it will have happened.


----------



## Digdot

dioxide45 said:


> While Hyatt has a management fee of 15%, this isn't really out of line when compared to Marriott Vacation Club. Yes, MVC has only a 10% management fee at most domestic USA resorts, but Marriott calculates that fee on the total maintenance fee (including reserves and taxes). Based on prior posts here, it seems that Hyatt only collects it on the operating fee. Where Hyatt does stand out is that they collect the management fee against the Club Fee. Something that neither Vistana or Marriott do.


Good info. FYI- management fee 13%


----------



## bizaro86

Digdot said:


> Agree. And Lower fees not guaranteed and not explained



I mean, they did explain where they think there will be savings. The club fee will be gone, the management fee will be less, and they are going to push for savings on contracted items. Those all seem obvious to me. The club fee is a guaranteed savings, and the management fee will certainly be less. Marriott only charges the MVC resorts 10%, so moving up to 15% for sunset seems egregious to me. I'd also be very surprised if there aren't other savings to be found- I've been on the boards of multiple whole ownership condos that have switched from large to small management firms, and we always find huge savings switching from their "preferred" vendors.

There wouldn't be any upfront costs to switching, and the savings over time are likely significant. The only resort that has ditched hotel management in the last 15 years that I'm aware of is the Villas of Cave Creek in the Phoenix area. They are a small resort, but they fired Starwood/Vistana in 2011. Conveniently for comparison purposes, Vistana manages another resort of similar quality in the area (Sheraton Desert Oasis, where I own). It isn't a perfect apples to apples, as SDO has more amenities, but also has many more units to spread the costs over. To make it apples to apples, I'll compare the change in fees between 2010 (prior to the Cave Creek board going activist) to now.

Villas at Cave Creek 2010 MF were $996.
Villas at Cave Creek 2022 MF are $1075
Up by 8%

Sheraton Desert Oasis 2010 MF were $889
Sheraton Desert Oasis 2022 MF are $1258
Up by 41%

The difference is significant. 

And Starwood bills their club fees separately, so there was no savings from club fees included in this comparison, which means that for Hyatt owners the math is even more compelling.


----------



## bizaro86

Digdot said:


> Good info. FYI- management fee 13%



But Hyatt is raising it to 15%, and 13% is already well above the industry standard. The other hotel brands tend to be 10%, with independents even less.


----------



## dioxide45

Digdot said:


> Good info. FYI- management fee 13%


Yeah, I had seen that, but it also indicated that they would be increasing the fee to 14% in 2023 and 15% in 2024.


----------



## dioxide45

bizaro86 said:


> But Hyatt is raising it to 15%, and 13% is already well above the industry standard. The other hotel brands tend to be 10%, with independents even less.


I think with the method of calculation that Hyatt uses, it may not be that much out of line. At least when compared to MVC. Comparing it to Vistana it certainly is much higher as Vistana only charges 10% in most cases and also only charges it on operating fees.


----------



## Digdot

INCHWORM said:


> I've never thought of timeshare purchase as anything BUT access to vacation and Hyatt system has made that even more worthwhile with trade availability between our multiple properties (owning at 7 different locations).
> And for whomever thinks WOH points are worthless,  you won't convince me after I've enjoyed my stays in London (Great Scotland Yard), Napa (Alila), Big Sur (Alila), Paris (Park Hyatt Vendome) and Amsterdam (Andaz), Maui (Andaz) for weeks of stays and tens of thousands of dollars in value (all for free using WOH points). So if you're not getting value from WOH points,  you simply don't know how/where to use them or you don't travel much! (Check out "The Points Guy" site - he likes WOH points just like me)
> 
> Next...Re; Don Heisler...he may be a terrific guy and may have helped many people...I don't know him. However,  the definition of conflict of interest is that someone may have a financial interest or benefit from a certain transaction/action. Under these circumstances I believe he would meet that definition (irregardless of any of his potential good will, good deeds, etc) and I was previously inquiring about why the original email came from Mr. Heisler as opposed to the BOD president?
> As for the urgency/rush...apparently SOME of you seem to think this has been in the works for 3-4 years? While for others of us who use the pool area to swim, sunbathe and relax (instead of engaging in the latest complaining du jour), we were blindsided by this BOD email and rush to vote.  Apparently,  the squeaky wheel gets greased and those who were complaining (for years, I presume???) seem to want a knee jerk  reaction of "let's get out" WITHOUT a definition from the BOD as to what it looks like on the other side of "getting out".
> As one person on this site indicated,  they did not even want to pursue their purchase of a unit at one of the locations unless they knew it would continue as part of HRC.
> I'm having a hard time digesting the short sightedness of some who say they NEVER trade their weeks...just wait...things change,  life can throw curveballs and plans can change year to year.
> I'd be relieved if the BOD would open their email to comments and discussion in a forum emailed to ALL members and allow that BEFORE voting!
> This is a major decision even if you don't typically do anything except use your owner week...things can change in your life and you might need alternative options in the future (and RCI would NOT be of any value in the future IMHO)


Superb thinking.


----------



## Digdot

dioxide45 said:


> Yeah, I had seen that, but it also indicated that they would be increasing the fee to 14% in 2023 and 15% in 2024.


We can hope the Board will hold them to 13%again


----------



## bizaro86

Digdot said:


> Superb thinking.



Not surprising that the person posting salesman logic type arguments and the person strongly in favor of that post both joined in the last 2 days...


----------



## dioxide45

bizaro86 said:


> Not surprising that the person posting salesman logic type arguments and the person strongly in favor of that post both joined in the last 2 days...


I am not sure I would use when someone joined as a qualifier. I would suspect when people started receiving these emails they probably started Googling the topic and thus this thread comes up.


----------



## JanT

Precisely.  I’m not convinced an independent management company will take care of the resort at a level I expect. Right now the board of directors hasn’t given me enough information to vote yes on this and I don’t think they can.  I’m not sure who’s brainchild this movement is but I’d sure like to know the true information behind it.



dioxide45 said:


> Another thing that comes up is when a resort becomes independant, they move away from certain brand standards that existed under previous management. So they may opt for an eight year refurbishment cycle instead of five. That means that you don't get the same level of quality you once paid for. They start to only swap out an appliance when the previous one breaks instead of a full refurbishment on a cycle. This all in the name of reducing costs. Sure the new standard might be sufficient for some or many, but it is also not what people bought in for originally. People will say now that it won't happen, but look back 20 years from now and I can pretty much guarantee you it will have happened.


----------



## Sapper

dioxide45 said:


> While Hyatt has a management fee of 15%, this isn't really out of line when compared to Marriott Vacation Club. Yes, MVC has only a 10% management fee at most domestic USA resorts, but Marriott calculates that fee on the total maintenance fee (including reserves and taxes). Based on prior posts here, it seems that Hyatt only collects it on the operating fee. Where Hyatt does stand out is that they collect the management fee against the Club Fee. Something that neither Vistana or Marriott do.


I seem to remember someone stating Hyatt/MVC revised the “reserves” name to “operating reserves” that way the funds allocated toward reserves are now calculated in the management fee percentage.

An easy way to see how much MVC has actually increased their fees would be to look at the actual management fee from pre-MVC acquisition and the actual most recent management fee, then calculate the percentage increase. If it is more than 2-3% per year increase (inflation over that time period), then MVC is playing some dirty accounting tricks in order to increase their profit margin, and we are footing that bill.


----------



## Sapper

echino said:


> No idea, I don't own at Sunset Harbor. I own at Windward Pointe. So I don't have a say in the matter. I just hope whatever the outcome is, Hyatt at least reacts by eliminating the club dues on the second owned week, and just charges $157 once per owner, regardless of the number of weeks owned, just like other timeshare systems do.


That irritating club fee on each unit owned has been a sore spot for more than a decade. It is pure profit for the management company, and I believe they will fight to keep it... possibly to the detriment of the entire club as it is a pain point referenced here with Sunset, and was referenced when Aspen was talking about walking.


----------



## ScoopKona

dioxide45 said:


> I am not sure I would use when someone joined as a qualifier. I would suspect when people started receiving these emails they probably started Googling the topic and thus this thread comes up.



Hyatt salespeople ABSOLUTELY read the TUG Hyatt forum religiously when we worked there. Every morning, without fail.


----------



## dioxide45

ScoopLV said:


> Hyatt salespeople ABSOLUTELY read the TUG Hyatt forum religiously when we worked there. Every morning, without fail.


But did they normally post? I would suspect that is against company policy?


----------



## ocdb8r

dioxide45 said:


> Another thing that comes up is when a resort becomes independant, they move away from certain brand standards that existed under previous management. So they may opt for an eight year refurbishment cycle instead of five. That means that you don't get the same level of quality you once paid for. They start to only swap out an appliance when the previous one breaks instead of a full refurbishment on a cycle. This all in the name of reducing costs. Sure the new standard might be sufficient for some or many, but it is also not what people bought in for originally. People will say now that it won't happen, but look back 20 years from now and I can pretty much guarantee you it will have happened.



This to me is what current owners should be thinking about as the counterpoint.  I think there is some obviously compelling math for dropping Hyatt when it comes to the per week club dues fee.  However, as to the rest of the budget, there is no "magic wand" to be waved to lower maintenance fees. 



bizaro86 said:


> There wouldn't be any upfront costs to switching, and the savings over time are likely significant. The only resort that has ditched hotel management in the last 15 years that I'm aware of is the Villas of Cave Creek in the Phoenix area. They are a small resort, but they fired Starwood/Vistana in 2011. Conveniently for comparison purposes, Vistana manages another resort of similar quality in the area (Sheraton Desert Oasis, where I own). It isn't a perfect apples to apples, as SDO has more amenities, but also has many more units to spread the costs over. To make it apples to apples, I'll compare the change in fees between 2010 (prior to the Cave Creek board going activist) to now.
> 
> Villas at Cave Creek 2010 MF were $996.
> Villas at Cave Creek 2022 MF are $1075
> Up by 8%
> 
> Sheraton Desert Oasis 2010 MF were $889
> Sheraton Desert Oasis 2022 MF are $1258
> Up by 41%
> 
> The difference is significant.



Yes...and the quality is significant as well.  Have you visited Cave Creek in the last 5 years?  It's a beautiful resort and I have no qualms staying there, but they haven't "upgraded" the interiors at the resort in 10 years.  They do a good job of "maintaining" them, but that consists of simply replacing defective soft goods and caring for the hard goods.  I have no problem with this approach, and in fact we have family with some wonderful timeshares at little independent resorts that we love to stay at....but it is a big difference compared to when we go to a Hyatt or Vistana resort.  There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, but owners should think about the "brand standards" they want when they vote.

One odd thing that did stand out to me in the Appendix was the power granted to Hyatt/MVC under the contract ("all the powers and duties of the Association") and the examples of supplier contracts signed without input from the Board or appropriate competitive tendering.  I don't understand how this is appropriate; I agree that the Board should be delegating "day-to-day" management of the resort to whatever management company it decides on, but I can't understand a relationship where that delegation is so broad the Board doesn't have the power to demand certain processes for expenditure or to require their approval for significant contracts.


----------



## AJCts411

Digdot said:


> Hi there
> You seem to be in the know
> Did you hear how much this breakaway will cost us?
> I haven’t heard anything
> I would have thought that the price tag would have been disclosed by our BOD as I think it’s important information for me to make an intelligent decision



Breakaway fees?  There is a management agreement, and a club agreement, Legal contracts end and are renewed.  This is not Twitter.  The BOD stated their reasoning to support this effort.  Exact saving, not calculable until the new management proposals are reviewed.   Want a guess,  up to 40% by what other similar resorts are charged.  The no votes seem to be using "not enough information" as their reasoning, yet raise fears by questioning the inapplicable.  If you own you have a vote,  my two are a yes.  

I've read all of the information presented by the BOD and it is sufficient to gain my yes vote.   I trust the BOD did the due diligence required, and I do not trust Hyatt to treat me fairly as an owner, it is in their sales pitches for portfolio "owners are the problem" and Hyatt stopped selling weeks.  Now only pushing Portfolio.  My question, where was the vote to allow portfolio?   
The fear mongering on a evil cabal running the board is unfounded, all of the plotting against the owners has been by Hyatt.


----------



## AJCts411

ocdb8r said:


> This to me is what current owners should be thinking about as the counterpoint.  I think there is some obviously compelling math for dropping Hyatt when it comes to the per week club dues fee.  However, as to the rest of the budget, there is no "magic wand" to be waved to lower maintenance fees.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...and the quality is significant as well.  Have you visited Cave Creek in the last 5 years?  It's a beautiful resort and I have no qualms staying there, but they haven't "upgraded" the interiors at the resort in 10 years.  They do a good job of "maintaining" them, but that consists of simply replacing defective soft goods and caring for the hard goods.  I have no problem with this approach, and in fact we have family with some wonderful timeshares at little independent resorts that we love to stay at....but it is a big difference compared to when we go to a Hyatt or Vistana resort.  There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, but owners should think about the "brand standards" they want when they vote.
> 
> One odd thing that did stand out to me in the Appendix was the power granted to Hyatt/MVC under the contract ("all the powers and duties of the Association") and the examples of supplier contracts signed without input from the Board or appropriate competitive tendering.  I don't understand how this is appropriate; I agree that the Board should be delegating "day-to-day" management of the resort to whatever management company it decides on, but I can't understand a relationship where that delegation is so broad the Board doesn't have the power to demand certain processes for expenditure or to require their approval for significant contracts.



As explained the contracts back in 1995 were before there was a BOD elected by owners. very one sided, profit driven by the developer and Hyatt. Then came the owners ....


----------



## Kal

INCHWORM said:


> Seriously???
> I've had enough of your ludicrous accusations...go jump in a...


The only way for you to have ANY level of credibility is to tell us what SUNSET HARBOR unit/weeks you own.


----------



## ocdb8r

AJCts411 said:


> As explained the contracts back in 1995 were before there was a BOD elected by owners. very one sided, profit driven by the developer and Hyatt. Then came the owners ....



No, I get it and the circumstances under which it was put together...but it is still quite odd.  Totally makes no sense from a "governance" perspective and even if it somehow made sense in the early days when the developer didn't have any interest in dealing with these things, I am surprised Hyatt/MVC (not to mention the BOD) continued with a formulation delegating all power to the management company once there was an owner elected BOD.  It's ripe for creating antagonization and seems quite amateur for Hyatt/MVC to try to leverage such power to the detriment of engagement with the BOD.  I could understand if Hyatt/MVC took a hard line on the general commercial terms of the contract (to try to maintain parity across resorts), but to try to leverage provisions to exclude the BOD from decision-making on large supplier contracts and other cost items just seems dumb.  It sounds like they've backed the BOD into a corner where they have no ability to influence costs absent tossing Hyatt/MVC.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward

INCHWORM said:


> No ...not a Hyatt insider, Hyatt representative nor Hyatt employee. NEVER worked in the real estate industry or any related business so NO conflicts of interest here just FYI. I DO have a clear understanding of value and I have indeed stayed at ALL the Hyatt places I listed and stayed there ON points.  Yes, I  payed MF on those units I exchanged and *also received extra WOH every time I  purchased a unit*.  I can tell you I DO NOT use my WOH points unless the hotel property is charging in excess of $750 per night and I have literally had stays that would have exceeded $15,000 for 9 nights in Paris (where I was upgraded to a suite.) Plus numerous others stays in Europe and the US exceeding tens of thousands of dollars!
> So don't suggest I'm some sort of "insider" because I know how to use my points and my TS purchases. If I  sound enthusiastic it's because I really really like the HRC system and have used it to my FULL ADVANTAGE having had many fabulous vacations over the years.
> I have friends and relatives...some of whom have Wyndham, Marriott and Hilton. None are even remotely as satisfied with their systems as I am with Hyatt.  RCI is a crappy trading platform for them (according to them and by comparison to II offerings from what they tell me) And my Marriott friends literally HATE having to go on their site to fight for availability at exactly 12 or 13 months out and frequently not get what they want then my brother says they go on some other sight to try to trade for what they really wanted? I don't even understand how the heck their stuff works...I  just know they eventually purchased a couple Hyatt weeks eventually and are just as happy with Hyatt I am.
> So accuse me of "drinking the kool-aid" if you want but in my case the "kool-aid" has quenched ALL MY VACATION THIRSTS in the highest end 5 star places.  I own at SH and the other KW properties and I don't think new buyers will be very enthusiastic about future purchases of SH weeks without Hyatt affiliation. Perhaps only those who want to add to their current weeks,  but eventually they'll all die out as we're all getting older.
> IMO exiting HRC will/would be a terrible choice.
> However,  as disappointed as I would be with such a move...I  am equally disappointed (as mentioned before) that the BOD presented a one sided look at this WITHOUT giving a concise detailed plan for the future.  There was a lot of "maybe this" and "possibly that" in the appendix without a clearly defined future for the SH property with the main idea being that it might save you a couple hundred dollars a year.  But what are sort of property are we left with after those (modest) MF savings??? Some place with no options for trade to alternate properties?  (and yes my grandkids DO like the other KW places better) or...For WOH points?
> 
> So extremely disappointed that the board didn't propose this a year ago (if discussion has been going on for years as one person suggested here) and allow civil discourse, questions,  comments,  debate to take place for many months on an owner's site and then schedule a vote after adequate time. Instead,  I was blindsided by this and apparently I wasn't the only one!
> Just venting my extreme disappointment and also voting NO!



Is it safe to say you bought most/all you units retail from Hyatt? If so, compare the WOH point value you claim (not disagreeing) versus, the cost of retail versus the cost of an aftermarket purchase.

In other words, did the money you save in hotel bills exceed the money you spent to get those savings?

I think these are fair questions.


----------



## Kal

One element of the Hyatt gouge is to change ONE WORD in the budget.  As required by state law, every timeshare must setup a "reserve" account for future replacements.  Currently that's a major line item in the budget, nominally $1,000,000.  In the past, that item has been excluded from the 13% management fee calculation.  Now Hyatt calls it an "operational reserve".  It means they can now apply their 13% management fee to that line item.  Thus there is an additional $130,000 per year charge to the owners.  In two years the fee changes to 15% so the additional annual fee goes to $150,000.  Can we guess the level of effort Hyatt must incur to justify that charge???  I would suggest that charge be identified in a new line item as: "Various Rip-off Charges"


----------



## KWLover1946

INCHWORM said:


> No ...not a Hyatt insider, Hyatt representative nor Hyatt employee. NEVER worked in the real estate industry or any related business so NO conflicts of interest here just FYI. I DO have a clear understanding of value and I have indeed stayed at ALL the Hyatt places I listed and stayed there ON points.  Yes, I  payed MF on those units I exchanged and also received extra WOH every time I  purchased a unit.  I can tell you I DO NOT use my WOH points unless the hotel property is charging in excess of $750 per night and I have literally had stays that would have exceeded $15,000 for 9 nights in Paris (where I was upgraded to a suite.) Plus numerous others stays in Europe and the US exceeding tens of thousands of dollars!
> So don't suggest I'm some sort of "insider" because I know how to use my points and my TS purchases. If I  sound enthusiastic it's because I really really like the HRC system and have used it to my FULL ADVANTAGE having had many fabulous vacations over the years.
> I have friends and relatives...some of whom have Wyndham, Marriott and Hilton. None are even remotely as satisfied with their systems as I am with Hyatt.  RCI is a crappy trading platform for them (according to them and by comparison to II offerings from what they tell me) And my Marriott friends literally HATE having to go on their site to fight for availability at exactly 12 or 13 months out and frequently not get what they want then my brother says they go on some other sight to try to trade for what they really wanted? I don't even understand how the heck their stuff works...I  just know they eventually purchased a couple Hyatt weeks eventually and are just as happy with Hyatt I am.
> So accuse me of "drinking the kool-aid" if you want but in my case the "kool-aid" has quenched ALL MY VACATION THIRSTS in the highest end 5 star places.  I own at SH and the other KW properties and I don't think new buyers will be very enthusiastic about future purchases of SH weeks without Hyatt affiliation. Perhaps only those who want to add to their current weeks,  but eventually they'll all die out as we're all getting older.
> IMO exiting HRC will/would be a terrible choice.
> However,  as disappointed as I would be with such a move...I  am equally disappointed (as mentioned before) that the BOD presented a one sided look at this WITHOUT giving a concise detailed plan for the future.  There was a lot of "maybe this" and "possibly that" in the appendix without a clearly defined future for the SH property with the main idea being that it might save you a couple hundred dollars a year.  But what are sort of property are we left with after those (modest) MF savings??? Some place with no options for trade to alternate properties?  (and yes my grandkids DO like the other KW places better) or...For WOH points?
> 
> So extremely disappointed that the board didn't propose this a year ago (if discussion has been going on for years as one person suggested here) and allow civil discourse, questions,  comments,  debate to take place for many months on an owner's site and then schedule a vote after adequate time. Instead,  I was blindsided by this and apparently I wasn't the only one!
> Just venting my extreme disappointment and also voting NO!


----------



## GTLINZ

bizaro86 said:


> WP and BH will never leave Hyatt because of the weeks in the trust where Hyatt controls the vote. Combine that with the people who will never vote on anything and the management fee there could go to 35% and they'd still be safe.



And SH will likely also have ownership controlled by Hyatt in the not so distant future,  if nothing changes ....

HPP has been unwise to not exercise more ROFR in the past because they were cheap. They need a lot more inventory at SH to boost HPP.  I suspect they will be a lot more aggressive if they survive this.

If SH does leave it would be a negative for me because I have loved my stays there.  I however hate to see what I purchased as an HRC owner continue to erode because of HPP.


----------



## ScoopKona

GTLINZ said:


> And SH will likely also have ownership controlled by Hyatt in the not so distant future,  if nothing changes ....



This is the big takeaway. If the SH vote fails, Hyatt will likely ROFR everything they can to retake the board. They need the points anyway and it's probably less expensive for them to "buy" the property than to let it slip away. They were very pleased with their controlling interest in Key West timeshares. Having just the two on the far side of the island would cause them to lose face in a big way.


----------



## KWLover1946

I am a 22 year owner of two weeks at SH. I live in Fla and love KW. I bought because I can easily drive down (no airport BS), and wanted to sped time in KW thinking that I would never want to trade out to another location. I was right. I have never used the trade system; never wanted too. Like many other SH owners, I am interested in that location and ONLY that location. As I read these posts I do come to better appreciate the disparity in our preferences. The magnitude of this decision will (and has) prompt comments/questions about motive and hidden agendas. This is not desirable, but actually should be a part of the conversation as long as the comments are kept above the belt. 

I know Don Heisler. I have purchased through Don Heisler. Yes, he has a profit motive, but he is also providing a very valuable service to current and future owners. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Why did he write the letter rather than the President?  He does this for a living, or maybe he volunteered, or maybe he was assigned by the president of the BOD. I'm sure he would tell anyone who asks him.

Within that same context I ask; how many owners have taken the time to sit in on one of the BOD meetings just to see what is said and done. I have. I was most impressed. I was the only non-BOD there, and was warmly welcomed to ask or comment as I chose. I was impressed by the due-diligence and frugality that I witnessed. I had historically been under the impression that to be on the BOD one had to be a "connected big wig". Not so! These BOD members are just like you and me only much more dedicated. Please trust me, be glad they are who they are. Plus, decisions made at the local level are better decisions. I firmly believe that our BOD has our best interests at heart. This knowledge is my biggest vote driver.

Truth be told, I had a silly personal reason for attending the meeting. Given the ages of most SH owners I have for years been asking if we could simply try Pandora Do-Wop music around the pool; just try it to test the reaction. Never happened! All I got was excuses that "the decision was made at the corporate level". Re music around the pool?! Give me a break.

I appreciate that this change will not benefit owner "traders" or outside owners trying to trade in. I understand that, but I not sure that they will be unable to continue to do so on their own. Getting rid of the "Portfolio Program" alone is good enough for me. The vigor and disrespect with which Hyatt tried to shove that money-grab scheme down my throat made me forever distrust Hyatt/Marriot.

I'm still reading, studying, and asking questions however I am leaning heavily toward "yes" and "yes".


----------



## dioxide45

Has the board shared the owner occupancy levels for the resort? I keep seeing where it is said that "most" owners use their week(s) and never trade, but I suspect this is more true of peak season and less true of off season. Are there any hard and true numbers that anyone can provide?


----------



## dioxide45

ocdb8r said:


> Yes...and the quality is significant as well.  Have you visited Cave Creek in the last 5 years?  It's a beautiful resort and I have no qualms staying there, but they haven't "upgraded" the interiors at the resort in 10 years.  They do a good job of "maintaining" them, but that consists of simply replacing defective soft goods and caring for the hard goods.  I have no problem with this approach, and in fact we have family with some wonderful timeshares at little independent resorts that we love to stay at....but it is a big difference compared to when we go to a Hyatt or Vistana resort.  There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, but owners should think about the "brand standards" they want when they vote.
> 
> One odd thing that did stand out to me in the Appendix was the power granted to Hyatt/MVC under the contract ("all the powers and duties of the Association") and the examples of supplier contracts signed without input from the Board or appropriate competitive tendering.  I don't understand how this is appropriate; I agree that the Board should be delegating "day-to-day" management of the resort to whatever management company it decides on, but I can't understand a relationship where that delegation is so broad the Board doesn't have the power to demand certain processes for expenditure or to require their approval for significant contracts.


This is exactly what I pointed out in post #143. Regular scheduled overhauls are traded in for repairs and replacements on an as needed basis. As you said, nothing wrong with that, but people really need to understand what they sign up for. Marriott/MVC also have more purchasing power than a small independant timeshare will have. Even if affiliated with a management company, the purchasing power won't be what they had before and renovations may either cost them more or cost the same but end up with a lower qualify result.


----------



## echino

dioxide45 said:


> Marriott/MVC also have more purchasing power than a small independant timeshare will have. Even if affiliated with a management company, the purchasing power won't be what they had before and renovations may either cost them more or cost the same but end up with a lower qualify result.



They may have more purchasing power, but it's not in their interest to use it to save money for the owners. Quite the opposite. The higher the expenses - the higher their management fee.


----------



## jabberwocky

Digdot said:


> If we vote no to terminate them and preserve our flexibility then we should all push Marriott to only charge one week for club dues on all weeks owned
> If you are able to shed some light on the total expense of this potential ouster,I’d appreciate you letting me know
> Thanks


From a negotiation standpoint, why would Hyatt change their policy after the HOA has already voted no?  You've lost all negotiation leverage on that.


----------



## chrisbellows

INCHWORM said:


> No ...not a Hyatt insider, Hyatt representative nor Hyatt employee. NEVER worked in the real estate industry or any related business so NO conflicts of interest here just FYI. I DO have a clear understanding of value and I have indeed stayed at ALL the Hyatt places I listed and stayed there ON points.  Yes, I  payed MF on those units I exchanged and also received extra WOH every time I  purchased a unit.  I can tell you I DO NOT use my WOH points unless the hotel property is charging in excess of $750 per night and I have literally had stays that would have exceeded $15,000 for 9 nights in Paris (where I was upgraded to a suite.) Plus numerous others stays in Europe and the US exceeding tens of thousands of dollars!
> So don't suggest I'm some sort of "insider" because I know how to use my points and my TS purchases. If I  sound enthusiastic it's because I really really like the HRC system and have used it to my FULL ADVANTAGE having had many fabulous vacations over the years.
> I have friends and relatives...some of whom have Wyndham, Marriott and Hilton. None are even remotely as satisfied with their systems as I am with Hyatt.  RCI is a crappy trading platform for them (according to them and by comparison to II offerings from what they tell me) And my Marriott friends literally HATE having to go on their site to fight for availability at exactly 12 or 13 months out and frequently not get what they want then my brother says they go on some other sight to try to trade for what they really wanted? I don't even understand how the heck their stuff works...I  just know they eventually purchased a couple Hyatt weeks eventually and are just as happy with Hyatt I am.
> So accuse me of "drinking the kool-aid" if you want but in my case the "kool-aid" has quenched ALL MY VACATION THIRSTS in the highest end 5 star places.  I own at SH and the other KW properties and I don't think new buyers will be very enthusiastic about future purchases of SH weeks without Hyatt affiliation. Perhaps only those who want to add to their current weeks,  but eventually they'll all die out as we're all getting older.
> IMO exiting HRC will/would be a terrible choice.
> However,  as disappointed as I would be with such a move...I  am equally disappointed (as mentioned before) that the BOD presented a one sided look at this WITHOUT giving a concise detailed plan for the future.  There was a lot of "maybe this" and "possibly that" in the appendix without a clearly defined future for the SH property with the main idea being that it might save you a couple hundred dollars a year.  But what are sort of property are we left with after those (modest) MF savings??? Some place with no options for trade to alternate properties?  (and yes my grandkids DO like the other KW places better) or...For WOH points?
> 
> So extremely disappointed that the board didn't propose this a year ago (if discussion has been going on for years as one person suggested here) and allow civil discourse, questions,  comments,  debate to take place for many months on an owner's site and then schedule a vote after adequate time. Instead,  I was blindsided by this and apparently I wasn't the only one!
> Just venting my extreme disappointment and also voting NO!


Agree 100%.  Vote NO.


----------



## chrisbellows

Lots of great observations and points on both sides (I'm voting NO), would be nice to get answers to all the many questions from the Board.  I understand how each person has to go with what they feel is best for them --- that's to be expected and respected.   There are so many unknowns, and life was so good at Sunset/Hyatt.   I know this seems random, but what happens to the parking deal the resort has with the garage if we terminate Hyatt?


----------



## bizaro86

jabberwocky said:


> From a negotiation standpoint, why would Hyatt change their policy after the HOA has already voted no?  You've lost all negotiation leverage on that.


They also won't want to do that because then they'll have to do it for all the resorts, including the ones where they have no chance of ever losing the management contract (which is most of them)


----------



## Kal

Question to Sunset Harbor BOD member today: Is the vote "advisory" or an absolute referendum?
RESPONSE FROM DON HEISLER: “The board must abide by the owners vote so we cannot override the ballot and this is NOT an advisory vote. The statutes provide for the authority to do this and we must abide by the results. I would however expect that if the owners vote to terminate the management agreement then it is not likely that they would maintain the club agreement as it would not be to their benefit to do so without control of the resort. Regrettably if *we do not take back control of our resort we can expect a substantial increase in the maint. fees as Hyatt has promised that they will be charging us much higher fees shortly*. Best regards, Don Heisler Director” (emphasis added)


----------



## Kal

chrisbellows said:


> Lots of great observations and points on both sides (I'm voting NO), would be nice to get answers to all the many questions from the Board.  I understand how each person has to go with what they feel is best for them --- that's to be expected and respected.   There are so many unknowns, and life was so good at Sunset/Hyatt.   I know this seems random, but what happens to the parking deal the resort has with the garage if we terminate Hyatt?


The parking allocation to Sunset Harbor resort is a condition of the permit to construct the garage.  It is not tied to HRC management.


----------



## Kal

dioxide45 said:


> Has the board shared the owner occupancy levels for the resort? I keep seeing where it is said that "most" owners use their week(s) and never trade, but I suspect this is more true of peak season and less true of off season. Are there any hard and true numbers that anyone can provide?


The information has been provided by the HSH Resort Manager.  It is on an annual basis an is tabulated for all HRC resorts.


----------



## ivywag

We are brand new owners at Sunset having recently closed on a unit that we bought to use. We also have owned 6 other Hyatts for more than 20 years so not new to the system. We have become increasingly disillusioned with Hyatt/Interval/Marriott/HPP and now Welk. Although Welk is now a separate entity, I believe that it will be integrated into the HPP in the near future and further dilute internal trading much as HPP has done. None of the original sales promises were kept.  They only devised ways to try to sell us (again) what we had already bought! I missed a very good reservation this morning (my computer kept spinning after final SUBMIT and in the meantime an HPP person grabbed 6 nights of my 7 night reservation leaving only the Saturday night— but I digress.  Back to Hyatt-  I now have 7 Interval memberships- one for each ownership.  That has always been unfair in my mind. We also pay 7 membership fees, etc.  Hyatt put all of this in place, but Marriott will continue to escalate the fees—all resorts are going up. We have been lucky enough to trade into Sunset Harbor every winter for more than 15 years so decided to buy a week and unit that we want to use. We are still on the fence about the vote. My biggest positives are self-control of costs and no need for the Hyatt name—remember that Hyatt can take the name anyway, it’s only a license to use. Also we don’t have to worry about an influx of Welkies in the future. Negatives,  If we leave, we will still have the HPP units available to those members and all other Hyatt members at 6 months. We have to worry about upkeep of the property to high standards- equal to what we have now or even better. This Board has high standards, but future ones may want to reduce costs and lower the standards.  Resale value and personal enjoyment both depend upon the quality of the resort. Being the oldest resort  and on the water comes with major maintenance issues. Insurance is a concern, too. We surely don’t want to be another Puerto Rico although I don’t believe that being a Hyatt really saved those owners any money although they could at least use the other Hyatt resorts while they were being re-built so the maintenance fees were not a complete waste. Those are my thoughts.  By the way, we have been very happy owners and wish that Hyatt had delivered what they promised, but things are changing and maybe it’s time for new management at Sunset.


----------



## Emerson

The current board has been completely ineffective the past few years and now wants to blame it all on Hyatt/ MVW. This is the dumbest idea yet. Every owner should vote no and throw out the current board. No, No, No!!!!


----------



## Kal

Welcome to TUG.  A vote only counts from Sunset Harbor owners.


----------



## Emerson

True, but do you know how many SH owners own at other Hyatt properties that will lose trading power of their points if this is successful?


----------



## Kal

I suspect you are one who will not be able to get into Sunset Harbor.  Please tell me the horrible actions that the current and former BOD has done?  That of course is other than lowering this year's maintenance fees.


----------



## ivywag

Emerson said:


> True, but do you know how many SH owners own at other Hyatt properties that will lose trading power of their points if this is successful?


Owners at the other resorts can still trade those properties, just not into Sunset Harbor or Aspen.


----------



## INCHWORM

ivywag said:


> We are brand new owners at Sunset having recently closed on a unit that we bought to use. We also have owned 6 other Hyatts for more than 20 years so not new to the system. We have become increasingly disillusioned with Hyatt/Interval/Marriott/HPP and now Welk. Although Welk is now a separate entity, I believe that it will be integrated into the HPP in the near future and further dilute internal trading much as HPP has done. None of the original sales promises were kept.  They only devised ways to try to sell us (again) what we had already bought! I missed a very good reservation this morning (my computer kept spinning after final SUBMIT and in the meantime an HPP person grabbed 6 nights of my 7 night reservation leaving only the Saturday night— but I digress.  Back to Hyatt-  I now have 7 Interval memberships- one for each ownership.  That has always been unfair in my mind. We also pay 7 membership fees, etc.  Hyatt put all of this in place, but Marriott will continue to escalate the fees—all resorts are going up. We have been lucky enough to trade into Sunset Harbor every winter for more than 15 years so decided to buy a week and unit that we want to use. We are still on the fence about the vote. My biggest positives are self-control of costs and no need for the Hyatt name—remember that Hyatt can take the name anyway, it’s only a license to use. Also we don’t have to worry about an influx of Welkies in the future. Negatives,  If we leave, we will still have the HPP units available to those members and all other Hyatt members at 6 months. We have to worry about upkeep of the property to high standards- equal to what we have now or even better. This Board has high standards, but future ones may want to reduce costs and lower the standards.  Resale value and personal enjoyment both depend upon the quality of the resort. Being the oldest resort  and on the water comes with major maintenance issues. Insurance is a concern, too. We surely don’t want to be another Puerto Rico although I don’t believe that being a Hyatt really saved those owners any money although they could at least use the other Hyatt resorts while they were being re-built so the maintenance fees were not a complete waste. Those are my thoughts.  By the way, we have been very happy owners and wish that Hyatt had delivered what they promised, but things are changing and maybe it’s time for new management at Sunset.





Kal said:


> I suspect you are one who will not be able to get into Sunset Harbor.  Please tell me the horrible actions that the current and former BOD has done?  That of course is other than lowering this year's maintenance fees.


Kai,
I  know you previously,  nastily accused me of being a Hyatt insider which I wholeheartedly disavow and refute, but I must ask are you (and ScoopLV) a SH owner? What is your interest here? Are you still in the real estate business? I know Scoop mentioned on this he was a former Hyatt salesperson...you too??? 
I  happened to be perusing a post regarding ROFR at Highlands and saw you guys posting there and then was curious about welk resort info and saw you guys posting there. Do you really have an ownership at SH or are you a disrupter/distraction? Who do you work for? 
I had to enlist my adult son (I'm not the most tech savvy person) to help me find a site where people were talking about the SH vote because I  was so upset about the BOD email. So I'm rather amazed that as I  searched around other topics on this TUG website...you and ScoopLV show up EVERYWHERE.  Are you bots, or bored people,  or BOARD people or just have waaaay too much time on your hands?

Either way...do you own at SH or do you just like to add your 2 cents everywhere?
Just curious now that I noticed you post everywhere as if an expert on everything.
Not really trying to be nasty, but since you previously impuned my integrity,  I  was rather shocked to see you and ScoopLV referring to each other and posting everywhere.


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> True, but do you know how many SH owners own at other Hyatt properties that will lose trading power of their points if this is successful?


I totally agree


----------



## Kal

Never worked for Hyatt. Owned Hyatt and other timeshares for over 20 years. I have never met ScoopLV but would love to have a tall one with him. So please answer my original question. What unit-weeks do you own at Sunset Harbor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> Question to Sunset Harbor BOD member today: Is the vote "advisory" or an absolute referendum?
> RESPONSE FROM DON HEISLER: “The board must abide by the owners vote so we cannot override the ballot and this is NOT an advisory vote. The statutes provide for the authority to do this and we must abide by the results. I would however expect that if the owners vote to terminate the management agreement then it is not likely that they would maintain the club agreement as it would not be to their benefit to do so without control of the resort. Regrettably if *we do not take back control of our resort we can expect a substantial increase in the maint. fees as Hyatt has promised that they will be charging us much higher fees shortly*. Best regards, Don Heisler Director” (emphasis added)


To some degree, the bolded part seems to come across as a scare tactic to entice a Yes vote?


----------



## SteveinHNL

INCHWORM said:


> Kai,
> I  know you previously,  nastily accused me of being a Hyatt insider which I wholeheartedly disavow and refute, but I must ask are you (and ScoopLV) a SH owner? What is your interest here? Are you still in the real estate business? I know Scoop mentioned on this he was a former Hyatt salesperson...you too???
> I  happened to be perusing a post regarding ROFR at Highlands and saw you guys posting there and then was curious about welk resort info and saw you guys posting there. Do you really have an ownership at SH or are you a disrupter/distraction? Who do you work for?
> I had to enlist my adult son (I'm not the most tech savvy person) to help me find a site where people were talking about the SH vote because I  was so upset about the BOD email. So I'm rather amazed that as I  searched around other topics on this TUG website...you and ScoopLV show up EVERYWHERE.  Are you bots, or bored people,  or BOARD people or just have waaaay too much time on your hands?
> 
> Either way...do you own at SH or do you just like to add your 2 cents everywhere?
> Just curious now that I noticed you post everywhere as if an expert on everything.
> Not really trying to be nasty, but since you previously impuned my integrity,  I  was rather shocked to see you and ScoopLV referring to each other and posting everywhere.


One thing I can tell you is both Kal and ScoopLV are great resources and very generously share info and assistance when asked privately and publicly.


----------



## INCHWORM

I


Kal said:


> Never worked for Hyatt. Owned Hyatt and other timeshares for over 20 years. I have never met ScoopLV but would love to have a tall one with him. So please answer my original question. What unit-weeks do you own at Sunset Harbor?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would never answer that question because it would disclose my identity by disclosing unit and week. My identity is none of your business other than disclose to other users on this forum that I am (perhaps in the minority of TS owners within ANY system) a very happy Hyatt TS owner of multiple multiple units who is savvy enough in terms trade, II, and WOH to take MAXIMUM advantage of everything the system has to offer. Sounds like many people have either not taken advantage of the options within the system OR choose not to (which I can respect if they choose to stay in one place year after year as their personal preference).
Not my choice,  however,  as we like to travel,  although we usually get to one of our KW units annually and it's frequently,  not always SH.

Now...you told me you own timeshares,  but didn't indicate whether you have "skin" in this game? Do you own at SH? (And I'm not interested in knowing your week/unit.) Just hoping you'll answer honestly whether you own at SH?


----------



## INCHWORM

I'm asking because I am an SH owner and care very deeply about property even though I only use my time there about 80% of the time. (As previously mentioned,  little grandkids like WP and BH).
I see a divorce from Hyatt as a significant devaluation of the property and significantly decreased marketability for anyone who might want to sell in the future. On this point,  it sounds like many of us will have to agree to disagree because there have been numerous posts on both sides of this prediction. I guess time will tell if this unfortunate divorce happens. So from my perspective,  it's worth a few bucks to have all the options I have found valuable and worthwhile for me and to maintain certain standards for the property (Frankly, I'd like to see the standards elevated further and would be willing to add a couple more bucks to my MF) For some,  they might not give a (darn) as to elevated standards as long as a few bucks remain in their pockets.?
I purchased here and all the other Hyatt timeshares because of a DEEDED WEEK/DEEDED UNIT, the Hyatt name,  the Hyatt standards and then during my many, many years of Hyatt ownership and many properties added to my ownership have come to fully appreciate all the other uses I have availed myself of as previously mentioned (trade,  II, WOH).


----------



## TUGBrian

this is clearly a very hot topic, please be sure to follow the forum rules in regards to being courteous to each other.


----------



## Pathways

Emerson said:


> The current board has been completely ineffective the past few years and now wants to blame it all on Hyatt/ MVW.


Three HRC's you own at (at least you are listing in your first day on this forum) and yet you think all three have 'completely ineffective' BOD's.

Please explain your reasoning - Have you attending meetings? Had conversations with the board members?

I have attended board meetings at two of the three you list.  I personally came away with a very different outlook.


----------



## Emerson

I have been going to SH for 20 years and have never been shut out.
The current board ran several years back on the premises that they would make a difference. The situation has only gotten worse, and this is their solution?
HyattMVW has been far from perfect one this matter, however I feel that the best way to move forward is to find common ground and fix the problems.
There is a tremendous advantage in being associated with a major timeshare company. The financial clout alone, should a hurricane hit SH, is just one. If this vote is successful and a hurricane hit, watch out. Major assessments here we come.


----------



## Emerson

I didn’t say all 3 boards were ineffective, just SH. Yes, I attend board meetings and have spoken with a number of board members at all 3 resorts.


----------



## Pathways

Emerson said:


> I didn’t say all 3 boards were ineffective, just SH. Yes, I attend board meetings and have spoken with a number of board members at all 3 resorts.


This makes NO sense then.  The issues the HSH BOD and owners have with Hyatt are THE EXACT SAME as at the other resorts.  You are saying the BOD at SH is 'ineffective', yet they are the ONLY BOD to attempt to make a change.


----------



## Pathways

Emerson said:


> HyattMVW has been far from perfect one this matter, however I feel that the best way to move forward is to find common ground and fix the problems.


Totally agree here.  The discussion to find common ground have been ongoing for years, and the Hyatt response has been ....."we are now going to RAISE our cut by another 2%, and your BOD has NO SAY in the contracts we sign for the resort YOU own.

As a wise man once said: "How's that workin for ya?"

Maybe you are correct, time to FIX the problem.


----------



## IslandTime

Emerson said:


> There is a tremendous advantage in being associated with a major timeshare company. The financial clout alone, should a hurricane hit SH, is just one. If this vote is successful and a hurricane hit, watch out. Major assessments here we come.



Hacienda Del Mar says hello - it sounded like the owners there were less than thrilled with how Hyatt handled that.


----------



## Pathways

Emerson said:


> Yes, I attend board meetings and have spoken with a number of board members at all 3 resorts


Then I am sure you are aware of the extreme unhappiness at BH and WP with the way Hyatt refused to allow the BOD to market the board owned weeks.  Having to carry those weeks for years with no MF paid was a very visible line item in our MF's.  

I'm sure you are aware of the refurbishment - here you go BOD, here is our design team, (but you can pay for them) and let them show you the three color schemes you can pick from.  Oh, and get rid of that chicken picture on the lobby wall, that thing is disgusting" (The board held their ground on that one).

A plus for Hyatt at BH and WP - Hyatt took most if not all of the unsold weeks and dumped them into the points program.  A win for today for our budget as they are now paying MF's.  Win for the resort long term?  Don't know yet.


----------



## Pathways

Emerson said:


> There is a tremendous advantage in being associated with a major timeshare company. The financial clout alone, should a hurricane hit SH, is just one. If this vote is successful and a hurricane hit, watch out. Major assessments here we come.


Watch out is right - we just need to look at Puerto Rico to know almost anyone could handle a disaster to a resort better. The threads within this forum do not give HRC kudos for their response to the owners there.


----------



## HenryT

There is some good discussion on this topic, but I would ask that you be wary of the opinions of those who just joined Tug within the last week. Sure, some of these people may have come to gain more information before deciding how they would vote, but some of these people are clearly not looking for information at all. They are looking to influence the vote by strongly attacking the board and acting if Hyatt management is the best thing since sliced bread and totally has the owner’s best interest at heart.

My suggestion is to put more weight on the opinions of long-term Tug members who are voting NO than the people who jointed this month who are voting NO.

When I first started looking to own at Sunset Harbor, I thought the maintenance fee was so high because operating costs were just high for that location. Then I saw the maintenance fees charged by comparable timeshares in the vicinity (Galleon and Coconut Beach) and saw that their maintenance fees were significantly less than Sunset’s fees. Both other timeshares are highly rated with maintenance fees for a 2-bedroom unit around $1200 (Galleon) and $1500 (Coconut Beach) while Sunset’s fees are over $1800. Also, the resale purchase price for these other 2 timeshares tends to be higher than the resale values at Sunset.

Sunset’s board has no incentive to bring the resort down and they can be voted out if they don’t perform. If the Galleon and Coconut Beach can survive and prosper with their own management, so can Sunset Harbor.

Which way you vote though will depend on your own personal situation, but you should make that vote by looking objectively at the facts and not be swayed by people who may be planted in this forum by Hyatt.


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> The information has been provided by the HSH Resort Manager.  It is on an annual basis an is tabulated for all HRC resorts.


I was hoping that someone had some information that could actually be shared, but it mostly seems anecdotal. For those that go in February and March every year, sure they are going to always think owners are always using their weeks and never trading. All the people there in prime snowbird season are likely to be owners. Go in September and October and you might think owners never use their owned week and are always trading out because the mix of HRC/HPP point guests is probably much higher.


----------



## Pathways

Emerson said:


> There is a tremendous advantage in being associated with a major timeshare company


Agree- there certainly CAN be an advantage.  I would love to stay with Hyatt. Just get rid of the double, triple, and quadruple dipping fees. Marriott fired the entire back office HRC staff and took it all in house, most assuredly without hiring anyone new. They handle the IT system now. Did any of their 'synergy savings' make it to us? Of course not. 

For those who argue to stick with Hyatt, what say you if/when Marriott sells the Hyatt/Welk system?  This has long been speculated since Marriott has made it clear they can't/won't merge the MVC system into a system branded with a 'competing' hotel chain. 

I have not been on the side speculating this sale will happen.  However, with the notice of the increase in management % and other minor actions we are seeing, I can't help but wonder if Marriott is simply fattening up the balance sheet to make it attractive to a buyer.


----------



## dioxide45

Pathways said:


> I have not been on the side speculating this sale will happen. However, with the notice of the increase in management % and other minor actions we are seeing, I can't help but wonder if Marriott is simply fattening up the balance sheet to make it attractive to a buyer.


It has been speculated that they could look for a buyer for HRC, but losing resorts certainly won't help with that...


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> I was hoping that someone had some information that could actually be shared, but it mostly seems anecdotal. For those that go in February and March every year, sure they are going to always think owners are always using their weeks and never trading. All the people there in prime snowbird season are likely to be owners. Go in September and October and you might think owners never use their owned week and are always trading out because the mix of HRC/HPP point guests is probably much higher.


These figures have been published in the Hyatt Destination newsletters that are emailed to owners. If I find the time to search for old copies, I will pass it along.  IIRC, owner usage is around 89% at SH. One copy actually had the numbers from multiple resorts.

Remember, that doesn't mean the owner STAYED there during their week, just that they USED their fixed week.  (IOW, they may have rented it).  So trading for points or II would NOT be owner used.


----------



## bnoble

Pathways said:


> A plus for Hyatt at BH and WP - Hyatt took most if not all of the unsold weeks and dumped them into the points program. A win for today for our budget as they are now paying MF's. Win for the resort long term? Don't know yet.


I own at a different resort in another system that faced a similar situation. My personal take is that it's probably on balance a good thing to have a developer willing to take non-performing inventory at little-to-no cost to the resort's current owners, and have someone be on the hook for paying the fees. The downside at my resort is that this is a one-way trip: the points product that the developer sells does not convey voting rights, and those remain with the developer. That's a significant cost to pay if Hyatt works the same way.

However, it's worth remembering that selling timeshare is _hard to do_. It's one thing having a week or two here and there that the Board is trying to sell to current owners and their friends/family by word of mouth and maybe a listing on the resort's web page. It's quite another when you have a significant chunk of unsold or otherwise non-performing inventory carried on the books. Focusing on the management fees and operating costs is fine as far as it goes, but I'd care more about two things. First, what's the trajectory of non-performing inventory? Is it small or large? Is it stable, growing slowly, or growing quickly? Second, if the answers are either "large" or "growing quickly" I'd want to know what the _realistic_ plan is for dealing with that. "We will just (foreclose and) sell them" doesn't sound realistic if there isn't a substantial sales effort behind it with people working on the problem as their day job.

On the other hand, if the answers are "small" and "stable/growing slowly", respectively, then yes: the management fees/operating costs are the things to worry about.

The more seasonal a weeks-based resort is, the more serious the non-performing problem becomes--blue week owners will tend to abandon their weeks at higher rates, because they are under water with fees vs. rental value and there is no point in owning them. Key West may not be that bad--there's probably only 2-3 months of slack demand in the peak hurricane window of late August to early October-ish. So, maybe it's not an issue for SH. But, the resort I have experience with is in an area that arguably has even less seasonal variation than Key West, and this was still a problem.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> The current board has been completely ineffective the past few years and now wants to blame it all on Hyatt/ MVW. This is the dumbest idea yet. Every owner should vote no and throw out the current board. No, No, No!!!!



Many many OWNERS are quite happy with the BOD. Notice I said OWNERS.  We elected them.  The BOD is exercising a great deal of due diligence and exposed the exorbadant fees Hyatt management is forcing upon us OWNERS.    Seems that the majority of owners are for Sunset to leave Hyatt. Why?  A bad BOD? Ludicrous.  Reducing our management fees to something comparable to Banyan or Galleon...comparable properties in KW.   Contiue to allow Portfolio to deminish the value of our resort?  Do you have any facts to support ypur comments other that yopu will lose being able to trade points into one of the Jewels of the current system? ANd I am not dumb...I am well informed.


----------



## AJCts411

dioxide45 said:


> To some degree, the bolded part seems to come across as a scare tactic to entice a Yes vote?



I'd call it a awakening. The truth. is the truth scary to you?


----------



## Kal

dioxide45 said:


> To some degree, the bolded part seems to come across as a scare tactic to entice a Yes vote?


FYI, I added the emphasis just to highlight the key issue on maintenance fee increases.


----------



## ScoopKona

INCHWORM said:


> Kai,
> I  know you previously,  nastily accused me of being a Hyatt insider which I wholeheartedly disavow and refute, but I must ask are you (and ScoopLV) a SH owner? What is your interest here? Are you still in the real estate business? I know Scoop mentioned on this he was a former Hyatt salesperson...you too???



Kal literally wrote the user's guide to the Hyatt system. The official Hyatt manual is stupid. The worst tours I ever got were Hyatt owners who bought from someone who didn't really know how the system works (most older timeshare salespeople cling hard to the "buy a week, get a week, exchange a week, it's always a week) thing.

There is nothing nasty about having worked for Hyatt. I did. No point hiding it. It was a great job. It's the only big company I've ever worked for that I enjoyed. The rest of the big companies were like living in a Dilbert comic strip.

Frankly, I think he's right and you're wrong. Sunset Harbor is special. Nearly all the owners use what they own. It isn't "a little more than half." It's the overwhelming majority. If they vote to remove Hyatt, their ongoing fees will go down significantly at a stroke.

I think it is far more likely that all the Johnny-come-latelies to this one thread means that Marriott execs are crapping their expensive Italian suits over this.

There are three positions on full display:

1) Longtime SH owners (and members on this site): "Vote yes! Fees will immediately go down. Sure, we'll lose access to Hyatt properties, but there are other ways to get in if we want to."

2) The handful of SH owners who trade: "I'm not sure about this!" (Don't worry, guys, people like me will GLADLY trade our HWP and HBH weeks for your SH week if that happens. Bank on it. I'll feel a little guilty getting such a lopsidedly good trade if that ever happens.)

3) People who registered an account on TUG fifteen minutes ago: "No! The world will end! Don't do it! Think of the children!"

Frankly, from my perch, the people in group #3 look like paid shills. The sort of people Starbucks and Amazon sends to workplaces who are threatening to form a union.


----------



## Pathways

ScoopLV said:


> 1) Longtime SH owners (and members on this site): "Vote yes! Fees will immediately go down. Sure, we'll lose access to Hyatt properties, but there are other ways to get in if we want to."


And I will add that these longtime owners are reacting with thoughtful deliberation. Plusses, minuses, let's add it all up.

As I said, I have voted. I did not disclose how I voted. TUG in general, and this thread specifically is for INFORMATION, it is NOT a campaign site.


ScoopLV said:


> 3) People who registered an account on TUG fifteen minutes ago: "No! The world will end! Don't do it! Think of the children!"



This group seems to think it IS a campaign site.  I would like to accept that these are simply well meaning owners who have happened upon TUG and want to impart some knowledge, take away some wisdom, and help all timeshare loving owners to maximize their usage and enjoyment.

But reading their posts, it APPEARS to be words of a shill(s).  Funny how 3-4 day new posters constantly repeat how they would vote, strongly encourage others to do the same, and repeat debunked statements.


----------



## ScoopKona

Pathways said:


> As I said, I have voted. I did not disclose how I voted. TUG in general, and this thread specifically is for INFORMATION, it is NOT a campaign site.



Excellent point.

And although as a owner at a neighboring KW property, I will be very sad to see SH go, I also wish everyone well. The way the owners are being treated is patently unfair. And the company line boils down to, "So go buy a week at the Galleon. Leave. And quit yer [sniveling]."

HBH and HWP owners didn't buy six weeks at a clip and consider the property their vacation house. Because that's what it is. It's timeshare in the original Swiss model of timesharing. "I can go home and work 11 months of the year, as long as I get my one month here for the rest of my life."

Being forced to pay for something they don't want and haven't used for decades is galling. I'd be angry about it, too, if this applied to me. And the response, "Don't like it? Well, we'll raise the fees. Then you _really_ won't like it," is rather short-sighted on management's part.


----------



## KWLover1946

Emerson said:


> The current board has been completely ineffective the past few years and now wants to blame it all on Hyatt/ MVW. This is the dumbest idea yet. Every owner should vote no and throw out the current board. No, No, No!!!!


You obviously have very strong feelings about our current board. They may be legit. Would you care to share the details of why you feel so strongly.

I would also be curious; have you ever taken the time to attend a SH board meeting and observe their methodology, reasoning, prioritization process, decision making, etc? I have, and as I previously posted, I was both surprised and impressed with the heartfelt diligence I witnessed. They anguished and debated over every decision. I left feeling much more comfortable than I had in the past. Plus, the idea of having decisions made by someone that i can down next too at the pool, or call, or email is much better than a decision by some unidentified corporate pinhead in Chicago or New York or wherever.


----------



## Emerson

Yes, yes,yes,and yes. However I have better things to do in Key West to sit at a 4 hour BOD meeting watching and listening to a group that wants to micro manage SH.
No doubt a lot of own will vote yes, but there is no way two-thirds will.


----------



## KWLover1946

Emerson said:


> Yes, yes,yes,and yes. However I have better things to do in Key West to sit at a 4 hour BOD meeting watching and listening to a group that wants to micro manage SH.
> No doubt a lot of own will vote yes, but there is no way two-thirds will.


So, I take it that you are a "no" and a "no" vote. I'm trying to decide. Can you share your reasoning?


----------



## Pathways

KWLover1946 said:


> So, I take it that you are a "no" and a "no" vote. I'm trying to decide. Can you share your reasoning?


He doesn't have a vote - He doesn't own HSH,

He's just trying to influence those who do own there.


----------



## Pathways

KWLover1946 said:


> So, I take it that you are a "no" and a "no" vote. I'm trying to decide. Can you share your reasoning?


It's actually becoming quite humorous.  First it was that the board is a do-nothing board, should have done more in the past, should work harder now.  

Then, when a person who has actually attended the meeting comments about how hard they are working for the owners, (and I can tell by your description that yes, you have _actually_ attended) they make the comment that the board is micro managing.


----------



## dioxide45

KWLover1946 said:


> So, I take it that you are a "no" and a "no" vote. I'm trying to decide. Can you share your reasoning?


 didn't they say yes, yes, yes and yes?


----------



## KWLover1946

Pathways said:


> It's actually becoming quite humorous.  First it was that the board is a do-nothing board, should have done more in the past, should work harder now.
> 
> Then, when a person who has actually attended the meeting comments about how hard they are working for the owners, (and I can tell by your description that yes, you have _actually_ attended) they make the comment that the board is micro managing.


Oh well, ??? Thank you for your kind words. I am new to this site so I am behaving myself. I have noticed however the number of people that are convinced that the rising oceans and the next hurricane will wash the resort away. 

[Deleted: Political comments are not permitted on TUG.]


----------



## Pathways

KWLover1946 said:


> I have noticed however the number of people that are convinced that the rising oceans and the next hurricane will wash the resort away


Welcome to TUG!   A word of warning, keep political names/etc out of your posts or it will be deleted.  Cutting it kinda close in your last post.


----------



## KWLover1946

dioxide45 said:


> didn't they say yes, yes, yes and yes?


Sorry, I thought that the "yes,yes, yes, and yes" was  only a strong affirmation to my question about his strong feelings about the board rather than an indication about how he voted.  But, by now, who cares,  . I just got back from voting "yes", and "yes". 

I began to think about the months it took to get the pool renovation done despite the Covid mess. It was all outside work, everything else in the world was on hold, and Hyatt is an account that no manager, architect, or GC could or would ignore.  Still, the project stood dormant for months. I recall standing and looking out of my window and wanting to strap on my own tool belt and go out to "get-er-dun"already for God's sake. Maybe I was just being too harsh, or ?????????? maybe justifiably PO'ed?


----------



## KWLover1946

Pathways said:


> Welcome to TUG!   A word of warning, keep political names/etc out of your posts or it will be deleted.  Cutting it kinda close in your last post.


OK, thx for the heads up.


----------



## chrisbellows

ivywag said:


> We are brand new owners at Sunset having recently closed on a unit that we bought to use. We also have owned 6 other Hyatts for more than 20 years so not new to the system. We have become increasingly disillusioned with Hyatt/Interval/Marriott/HPP and now Welk. Although Welk is now a separate entity, I believe that it will be integrated into the HPP in the near future and further dilute internal trading much as HPP has done. None of the original sales promises were kept.  They only devised ways to try to sell us (again) what we had already bought! I missed a very good reservation this morning (my computer kept spinning after final SUBMIT and in the meantime an HPP person grabbed 6 nights of my 7 night reservation leaving only the Saturday night— but I digress.  Back to Hyatt-  I now have 7 Interval memberships- one for each ownership.  That has always been unfair in my mind. We also pay 7 membership fees, etc.  Hyatt put all of this in place, but Marriott will continue to escalate the fees—all resorts are going up. We have been lucky enough to trade into Sunset Harbor every winter for more than 15 years so decided to buy a week and unit that we want to use. We are still on the fence about the vote. My biggest positives are self-control of costs and no need for the Hyatt name—remember that Hyatt can take the name anyway, it’s only a license to use. Also we don’t have to worry about an influx of Welkies in the future. Negatives,  If we leave, we will still have the HPP units available to those members and all other Hyatt members at 6 months. We have to worry about upkeep of the property to high standards- equal to what we have now or even better. This Board has high standards, but future ones may want to reduce costs and lower the standards.  Resale value and personal enjoyment both depend upon the quality of the resort. Being the oldest resort  and on the water comes with major maintenance issues. Insurance is a concern, too. We surely don’t want to be another Puerto Rico although I don’t believe that being a Hyatt really saved those owners any money although they could at least use the other Hyatt resorts while they were being re-built so the maintenance fees were not a complete waste. Those are my thoughts.  By the way, we have been very happy owners and wish that Hyatt had delivered what they promised, but things are changing and maybe it’s time for new management at Sunset.


Wow, all great points going to both sides.  Thanks.


----------



## magicjourney

It's definitely a hot topic. Hyatt Residence Club just sent out an email:


Re: _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_ — HV Global Management Corporation ("HV Global")

Dear Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association Member:

Since joining the management team, I have enjoyed spending time meeting with boards and visiting the fabulous resorts in the _Hyatt Residence Club_ portfolio, and I can immediately understand why you love Sunset Harbor so much.

I am writing today because we have just been made aware that the board of directors of Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association has scheduled a meeting of the association membership for July 14 to vote on whether to terminate the Management Contract and terminate the Club Resort Agreement currently in effect. Upon learning this news, we wanted to connect with you as a valued Owner and to thank you for your ownership. In our view, we are part of the fabric of _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, having provided quality services for over 20 years, and we believe it is critically important that you also hear from us as part of this process.

Serving Sunset Harbor since 1994

Since 1994, HV Global Management has had the pleasure of serving as the management company for _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, and we have a strong desire to continue serving as your management company. Our goal at opening was to create a product that would provide flexibility and the highest quality home resort for all Sunset Harbor Owners. In addition to creating a dedicated window in which every Owner would have the guaranteed right to reserve their fixed unit/week, we also created the option of exchanging into other Club Resorts, Interval International®, and World of Hyatt®. While some Owners may have no desire to exchange, we want to remind all Owners that these flexible use options are provided by Hyatt Vacation Ownership and would cease immediately upon termination of the Club Resort Agreement. As additional benefits are expected to be added to the program in the future, we hope that you will view those as additional travel opportunities for you and your family.

_Hyatt Residence Club_ is and has always been dedicated to providing quality branded experiences for our Owners. The ability to do that is only possible through our team and the lasting relationships that they’ve created with Owners over the span of three decades. Sunset Harbor’s long-term tenured resort colleagues (some as long as 20 years) see you all just like family and are deeply committed to you and your ownership experience. I imagine each of you can think of a familiar face or two who has repeatedly helped you make unforgettable memories during your time in Key West.

You may have heard that Leidys Torres, General Manager, has recently moved from Key West after a six-year stint to be closer to family. Though we know many of you will miss Leidys, we are actively in the search and interview process to fill this integral role. Thankfully, we have two other sister _Hyatt Residence Club_ properties in Key West, which allow us to support and assist you during this interim as needed, and a task-force manager from another _Hyatt Residence Club_ resort filling the current need. We consider ourselves fortunate to be able to continue providing this level of support during a time of transition in such a challenging labor market.

As your management company, we have a solid and strong reputation in the vacation ownership industry and specifically within the Key West market. In addition, we recently dedicated a core group of leaders — myself included, along with Stephanie Butera (who wrote to you earlier in the year) — who are 100 percent dedicated to Hyatt Vacation Ownership. That team has been working hard over the last year to build the future for the brand, which includes maintaining exceptional service and management support, listening to Owners, and addressing Owners’ concerns and ideas. There are many positive changes being worked on that balance the needs of Owners who simply want to use their home resort while also enabling Owners who want to explore new vacation options.

Upcoming Vote — Hearing from Us

As your management company, we believe it is important that you receive comprehensive information regarding the issues you are being asked to vote on. To assist you in making a fully informed decision about your management company, we have outlined a few points for your consideration:

Association Funds and Rental Income

Over the past five years the management company, working with the board of directors, has managed to keep the maintenance fee growth to an average increase of only 3.2%.
HV Global takes its role as a good steward of your association’s funds very seriously and works in partnership with your board of directors. There are many ways HV Global and the Hyatt Vacation Ownership business successfully support Sunset Harbor including insurance programs as part of a broader master portfolio, buying power using a national procurement service provider, Avendra, as well as through parent company, MVW, and even specifically leveraging our buying power in Key West as we manage multiple resorts in the market.
Each year, the management company works to negotiate favorable and competitive insurance coverage on behalf of the associations that it manages. As the volatile insurance market continues to deteriorate, our risk management team actively works to procure insurance programs specific to timeshare resorts, like Sunset Harbor. By participating in our portfolio insurance programs (versus stand-alone), the management company is able to procure insurance programs with a breadth of coverages for which the association benefits.
Club Rental income benefits all Owners in your annual budget, and the details are outlined in the Club Resort Agreement. The rental income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $88,000 in 2019, 2020, and 2021. In addition, rental income for the past five years exceeded $433,000.
Fees

Resort fee income refers to fees collected from all renters at Sunset Harbor. HV Global has worked with the board of directors to increase this fee to offset increased costs, which helps reduce maintenance fee increases. The resort fee income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $31,000 in 2021.
Parking fee income has also been a focus for HV Global and the board of directors. There is no on-site parking for Sunset Harbor Owners and guests, so a parking agreement remains a cost of doing business for the association. The expense of parking is funded by maintenance fees as well as nightly fees for non-Owners. In 2021, HV Global successfully collected over $91,000 in parking fees and a significant share of that association income came from non-Owners, including renters and exchangers.
Collection Process

HV Global has worked hand in hand with your board over the past few years to improve collection processes and outcomes. HV Global has continued to improve the collection process, provided collection forecasts to your board, and has shown positive results in improved collections. All these efforts support the board’s resale program and improved financial results for all Owners. It should be made clear that while most Sunset Harbor Owners pay their annual maintenance fees on time, some Owners do not. With these efforts, HV Global has driven reductions in year-end delinquencies over the past three years:

Year​Delinquency Rate​2019​2.7%​2020​2.2%​2021​1.6%​
Operational Costs

The board communication provides an example regarding the landscaping contract for the resort and associated costs. We would like to provide you with more detail regarding this example. HV Global partnered with your board in this effort. Ultimately, HV Global reduced the schedule and scope for the landscaper, while remaining focused on maintaining the property to the standards Owners have come to expect. HV Global utilized its in-house landscape manager, at no additional cost to Sunset Harbor, to align the best scope of work in the request for proposal and to ensure the bids met the needs of the association and were in line with the market. Additionally, HV Global was able to use its buying power of its _Hyatt Residence Club_ Avendra agreement to negotiate a lower cost for Sunset Harbor. HV Global worked with the board toward a better outcome for the Owners and to date has seen improved financial benefits while achieving the needed resort experience. It is also worth noting that the vendor recently requested an increase in its rate mid-contract, but with HV Global’s leverage with a national procurement company, HV Global was able to stave off any immediate increase.
In terms of housekeeping costs, HV Global continues to bid all work competitively with contracted services on a regular basis, in an effort to find the best value for the association and its members. The Key West labor market has seen extreme level of cost increases (most notably in the housekeeping area), which are affecting all local businesses. This challenging labor market has resulted in off-cycle wage increases for housekeeping, front desk, and engineering staff in order to retain crucial staffing levels. Additionally, the local housekeeping provider notified last summer that a 30% increase would be needed to maintain current staffing levels at the resort. HV Global immediately sought competitive bids from other providers while negotiating with the current vendor. Working with the board during detailed budget reviews, HV Global eventually determined that the best value for the association was to retain the current vendor. However, HV Global was successful in negotiating improved staffing efficiencies and processes and reduced the projected cost increase by 12%.
HV Global provides updated expense information on a monthly basis to your board of directors, as well as an analysis of the increases in materials and labor costs in the Key West market.

We Value You and Are Here to Listen

The Hyatt Vacation Ownership team is actively working to address important issues that have been raised by Owners, such as transaction fees and reservation windows. We are working to ensure that existing Owners wanting to stay at their home resort continue to retain all the rights they have today, while adding incremental options for Owners who would like to use their ownership to access new vacation possibilities.

We hope that you find this information useful and, if you have any questions, we are available to answer them. We are planning a webinar to help address any outstanding questions on June 22, 2022, from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Eastern Time.


----------



## INCHWORM

dioxide45 said:


> To some degree, the bolded part seems to come across as a scare tactic to entice a Yes vote?


Agreed


----------



## ScoopKona

KWLover1946 said:


> and Hyatt is an account that no manager, architect, or GC could or would ignore.  Still, the project stood dormant for months. I recall standing and looking out of my window and wanting to strap on my own tool belt and go out to "get-er-dun"already for God's sake. Maybe I was just being too harsh, or ?????????? maybe justifiably PO'ed?



Nothing happens in Key West until all the proper palms are greased. The corruption there is breathtaking.


----------



## kwsunset

To all who have made comments about this issue. Those of us who are the new people here, are not trying to tell everyone who owns at HSH,  how to vote. I'm here to get information on the subject. From what I have seen of the letter sent out by the BOD, it is incomplete on telling us what is to come next. I happen to know one of the BOD and I talked to them last fall, nothing was said about this being in the works. For those who said we should not have been blindsided, well we are. This BOD member I talked to,  owns more than one week, at HSH and doesn't use them anymore, just rents them out, and stays at another rental in town. As far as going to a board meeting, those have always been (as far as I know) in Oct. I don't own in Oct. so trying to stay at that time I probably couldn't get in.  Oct in KW is very hard to find anywhere to stay, with the festivals going on.


----------



## SteveinHNL

magicjourney said:


> We are planning a webinar to help address any outstanding questions on June 22, 2022, from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Eastern Time.



Thanks for posting this.  It should be an interesting Webinar.


----------



## ScoopKona

kwsunset said:


> To all who have made comments about this issue. Those of us who are the new people here, are not trying to tell everyone who owns at HSH



But that clearly isn't the case. The vast majority of the people who have registered during the past few days mostly share the same views. And they are about as easy to deal with as the "obstinate-dozen" in the Covid forum.

I don't want SH to leave the fold, either. But I am not going to blame anyone who votes in their own self interest. And the newcomers are mostly toeing a line that if it didn't come directly from Marriott headquarters, sure sounds like it did.

My biggest fear with the Hyatt Residence Club is that corporate wants to make the system so unbearable for deeded owners that people start selling in droves. Then management can ROFR all the resales and resell the same properties again with their new, ridiculous HPP system.


----------



## Kal

magicjourney said:


> It's definitely a hot topic. Hyatt Residence Club just sent out an email:
> 
> ​
> Re: _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_ — HV Global Management Corporation ("HV Global")
> 
> Dear Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association Member:
> 
> Since joining the management team, I have enjoyed spending time meeting with boards and visiting the fabulous resorts in the _Hyatt Residence Club_ portfolio, and I can immediately understand why you love Sunset Harbor so much.
> 
> I am writing today because we have just been made aware that the board of directors of Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association has scheduled a meeting of the association membership for July 14 to vote on whether to terminate the Management Contract and terminate the Club Resort Agreement currently in effect. Upon learning this news, we wanted to connect with you as a valued Owner and to thank you for your ownership. In our view, we are part of the fabric of _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, having provided quality services for over 20 years, and we believe it is critically important that you also hear from us as part of this process.
> 
> Serving Sunset Harbor since 1994
> 
> Since 1994, HV Global Management has had the pleasure of serving as the management company for _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, and we have a strong desire to continue serving as your management company. Our goal at opening was to create a product that would provide flexibility and the highest quality home resort for all Sunset Harbor Owners. In addition to creating a dedicated window in which every Owner would have the guaranteed right to reserve their fixed unit/week, we also created the option of exchanging into other Club Resorts, Interval International®, and World of Hyatt®. While some Owners may have no desire to exchange, we want to remind all Owners that these flexible use options are provided by Hyatt Vacation Ownership and would cease immediately upon termination of the Club Resort Agreement. As additional benefits are expected to be added to the program in the future, we hope that you will view those as additional travel opportunities for you and your family.
> 
> _Hyatt Residence Club_ is and has always been dedicated to providing quality branded experiences for our Owners. The ability to do that is only possible through our team and the lasting relationships that they’ve created with Owners over the span of three decades. Sunset Harbor’s long-term tenured resort colleagues (some as long as 20 years) see you all just like family and are deeply committed to you and your ownership experience. I imagine each of you can think of a familiar face or two who has repeatedly helped you make unforgettable memories during your time in Key West.
> 
> You may have heard that Leidys Torres, General Manager, has recently moved from Key West after a six-year stint to be closer to family. Though we know many of you will miss Leidys, we are actively in the search and interview process to fill this integral role. Thankfully, we have two other sister _Hyatt Residence Club_ properties in Key West, which allow us to support and assist you during this interim as needed, and a task-force manager from another _Hyatt Residence Club_ resort filling the current need. We consider ourselves fortunate to be able to continue providing this level of support during a time of transition in such a challenging labor market.
> 
> As your management company, we have a solid and strong reputation in the vacation ownership industry and specifically within the Key West market. In addition, we recently dedicated a core group of leaders — myself included, along with Stephanie Butera (who wrote to you earlier in the year) — who are 100 percent dedicated to Hyatt Vacation Ownership. That team has been working hard over the last year to build the future for the brand, which includes maintaining exceptional service and management support, listening to Owners, and addressing Owners’ concerns and ideas. There are many positive changes being worked on that balance the needs of Owners who simply want to use their home resort while also enabling Owners who want to explore new vacation options.
> 
> Upcoming Vote — Hearing from Us
> 
> As your management company, we believe it is important that you receive comprehensive information regarding the issues you are being asked to vote on. To assist you in making a fully informed decision about your management company, we have outlined a few points for your consideration:
> 
> Association Funds and Rental Income
> 
> Over the past five years the management company, working with the board of directors, has managed to keep the maintenance fee growth to an average increase of only 3.2%.
> HV Global takes its role as a good steward of your association’s funds very seriously and works in partnership with your board of directors. There are many ways HV Global and the Hyatt Vacation Ownership business successfully support Sunset Harbor including insurance programs as part of a broader master portfolio, buying power using a national procurement service provider, Avendra, as well as through parent company, MVW, and even specifically leveraging our buying power in Key West as we manage multiple resorts in the market.
> Each year, the management company works to negotiate favorable and competitive insurance coverage on behalf of the associations that it manages. As the volatile insurance market continues to deteriorate, our risk management team actively works to procure insurance programs specific to timeshare resorts, like Sunset Harbor. By participating in our portfolio insurance programs (versus stand-alone), the management company is able to procure insurance programs with a breadth of coverages for which the association benefits.
> Club Rental income benefits all Owners in your annual budget, and the details are outlined in the Club Resort Agreement. The rental income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $88,000 in 2019, 2020, and 2021. In addition, rental income for the past five years exceeded $433,000.
> Fees
> 
> Resort fee income refers to fees collected from all renters at Sunset Harbor. HV Global has worked with the board of directors to increase this fee to offset increased costs, which helps reduce maintenance fee increases. The resort fee income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $31,000 in 2021.
> Parking fee income has also been a focus for HV Global and the board of directors. There is no on-site parking for Sunset Harbor Owners and guests, so a parking agreement remains a cost of doing business for the association. The expense of parking is funded by maintenance fees as well as nightly fees for non-Owners. In 2021, HV Global successfully collected over $91,000 in parking fees and a significant share of that association income came from non-Owners, including renters and exchangers.
> Collection Process
> 
> HV Global has worked hand in hand with your board over the past few years to improve collection processes and outcomes. HV Global has continued to improve the collection process, provided collection forecasts to your board, and has shown positive results in improved collections. All these efforts support the board’s resale program and improved financial results for all Owners. It should be made clear that while most Sunset Harbor Owners pay their annual maintenance fees on time, some Owners do not. With these efforts, HV Global has driven reductions in year-end delinquencies over the past three years:
> ​
> Year​Delinquency Rate​2019​2.7%​2020​2.2%​2021​1.6%​
> Operational Costs
> 
> The board communication provides an example regarding the landscaping contract for the resort and associated costs. We would like to provide you with more detail regarding this example. HV Global partnered with your board in this effort. Ultimately, HV Global reduced the schedule and scope for the landscaper, while remaining focused on maintaining the property to the standards Owners have come to expect. HV Global utilized its in-house landscape manager, at no additional cost to Sunset Harbor, to align the best scope of work in the request for proposal and to ensure the bids met the needs of the association and were in line with the market. Additionally, HV Global was able to use its buying power of its _Hyatt Residence Club_ Avendra agreement to negotiate a lower cost for Sunset Harbor. HV Global worked with the board toward a better outcome for the Owners and to date has seen improved financial benefits while achieving the needed resort experience. It is also worth noting that the vendor recently requested an increase in its rate mid-contract, but with HV Global’s leverage with a national procurement company, HV Global was able to stave off any immediate increase.
> In terms of housekeeping costs, HV Global continues to bid all work competitively with contracted services on a regular basis, in an effort to find the best value for the association and its members. The Key West labor market has seen extreme level of cost increases (most notably in the housekeeping area), which are affecting all local businesses. This challenging labor market has resulted in off-cycle wage increases for housekeeping, front desk, and engineering staff in order to retain crucial staffing levels. Additionally, the local housekeeping provider notified last summer that a 30% increase would be needed to maintain current staffing levels at the resort. HV Global immediately sought competitive bids from other providers while negotiating with the current vendor. Working with the board during detailed budget reviews, HV Global eventually determined that the best value for the association was to retain the current vendor. However, HV Global was successful in negotiating improved staffing efficiencies and processes and reduced the projected cost increase by 12%.
> HV Global provides updated expense information on a monthly basis to your board of directors, as well as an analysis of the increases in materials and labor costs in the Key West market.
> 
> We Value You and Are Here to Listen
> 
> The Hyatt Vacation Ownership team is actively working to address important issues that have been raised by Owners, such as transaction fees and reservation windows. We are working to ensure that existing Owners wanting to stay at their home resort continue to retain all the rights they have today, while adding incremental options for Owners who would like to use their ownership to access new vacation possibilities.
> 
> We hope that you find this information useful and, if you have any questions, we are available to answer them. We are planning a webinar to help address any outstanding questions on June 22, 2022, from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Eastern Time.


HRC is like a black hole, they never provide any information.  All of a sudden they want to chit-chat.  Wonder what drew them out of the woodwork??


----------



## dbmarch

What is the boards perspective on this?    What happens if it the vote goes through?

We own at HSH and WP.  We never trade HSH and see no benefit of the club there.   The property is valuable for its location.   We rent it if we can't go. The club benefits from HSH.

WP benefits from the club.   

It's unfortunate there us so little information on what is going on.


----------



## Sapper

magicjourney said:


> It's definitely a hot topic. Hyatt Residence Club just sent out an email:
> 
> ​
> Re: _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_ — HV Global Management Corporation ("HV Global")
> 
> Dear Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association Member:
> 
> Since joining the management team, I have enjoyed spending time meeting with boards and visiting the fabulous resorts in the _Hyatt Residence Club_ portfolio, and I can immediately understand why you love Sunset Harbor so much.
> 
> I am writing today because we have just been made aware that the board of directors of Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association has scheduled a meeting of the association membership for July 14 to vote on whether to terminate the Management Contract and terminate the Club Resort Agreement currently in effect. Upon learning this news, we wanted to connect with you as a valued Owner and to thank you for your ownership. In our view, we are part of the fabric of _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, having provided quality services for over 20 years, and we believe it is critically important that you also hear from us as part of this process.
> 
> Serving Sunset Harbor since 1994
> 
> Since 1994, HV Global Management has had the pleasure of serving as the management company for _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, and we have a strong desire to continue serving as your management company. Our goal at opening was to create a product that would provide flexibility and the highest quality home resort for all Sunset Harbor Owners. In addition to creating a dedicated window in which every Owner would have the guaranteed right to reserve their fixed unit/week, we also created the option of exchanging into other Club Resorts, Interval International®, and World of Hyatt®. While some Owners may have no desire to exchange, we want to remind all Owners that these flexible use options are provided by Hyatt Vacation Ownership and would cease immediately upon termination of the Club Resort Agreement. As additional benefits are expected to be added to the program in the future, we hope that you will view those as additional travel opportunities for you and your family.
> 
> _Hyatt Residence Club_ is and has always been dedicated to providing quality branded experiences for our Owners. The ability to do that is only possible through our team and the lasting relationships that they’ve created with Owners over the span of three decades. Sunset Harbor’s long-term tenured resort colleagues (some as long as 20 years) see you all just like family and are deeply committed to you and your ownership experience. I imagine each of you can think of a familiar face or two who has repeatedly helped you make unforgettable memories during your time in Key West.
> 
> You may have heard that Leidys Torres, General Manager, has recently moved from Key West after a six-year stint to be closer to family. Though we know many of you will miss Leidys, we are actively in the search and interview process to fill this integral role. Thankfully, we have two other sister _Hyatt Residence Club_ properties in Key West, which allow us to support and assist you during this interim as needed, and a task-force manager from another _Hyatt Residence Club_ resort filling the current need. We consider ourselves fortunate to be able to continue providing this level of support during a time of transition in such a challenging labor market.
> 
> As your management company, we have a solid and strong reputation in the vacation ownership industry and specifically within the Key West market. In addition, we recently dedicated a core group of leaders — myself included, along with Stephanie Butera (who wrote to you earlier in the year) — who are 100 percent dedicated to Hyatt Vacation Ownership. That team has been working hard over the last year to build the future for the brand, which includes maintaining exceptional service and management support, listening to Owners, and addressing Owners’ concerns and ideas. There are many positive changes being worked on that balance the needs of Owners who simply want to use their home resort while also enabling Owners who want to explore new vacation options.
> 
> Upcoming Vote — Hearing from Us
> 
> As your management company, we believe it is important that you receive comprehensive information regarding the issues you are being asked to vote on. To assist you in making a fully informed decision about your management company, we have outlined a few points for your consideration:
> 
> Association Funds and Rental Income
> 
> Over the past five years the management company, working with the board of directors, has managed to keep the maintenance fee growth to an average increase of only 3.2%.
> HV Global takes its role as a good steward of your association’s funds very seriously and works in partnership with your board of directors. There are many ways HV Global and the Hyatt Vacation Ownership business successfully support Sunset Harbor including insurance programs as part of a broader master portfolio, buying power using a national procurement service provider, Avendra, as well as through parent company, MVW, and even specifically leveraging our buying power in Key West as we manage multiple resorts in the market.
> Each year, the management company works to negotiate favorable and competitive insurance coverage on behalf of the associations that it manages. As the volatile insurance market continues to deteriorate, our risk management team actively works to procure insurance programs specific to timeshare resorts, like Sunset Harbor. By participating in our portfolio insurance programs (versus stand-alone), the management company is able to procure insurance programs with a breadth of coverages for which the association benefits.
> Club Rental income benefits all Owners in your annual budget, and the details are outlined in the Club Resort Agreement. The rental income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $88,000 in 2019, 2020, and 2021. In addition, rental income for the past five years exceeded $433,000.
> Fees
> 
> Resort fee income refers to fees collected from all renters at Sunset Harbor. HV Global has worked with the board of directors to increase this fee to offset increased costs, which helps reduce maintenance fee increases. The resort fee income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $31,000 in 2021.
> Parking fee income has also been a focus for HV Global and the board of directors. There is no on-site parking for Sunset Harbor Owners and guests, so a parking agreement remains a cost of doing business for the association. The expense of parking is funded by maintenance fees as well as nightly fees for non-Owners. In 2021, HV Global successfully collected over $91,000 in parking fees and a significant share of that association income came from non-Owners, including renters and exchangers.
> Collection Process
> 
> HV Global has worked hand in hand with your board over the past few years to improve collection processes and outcomes. HV Global has continued to improve the collection process, provided collection forecasts to your board, and has shown positive results in improved collections. All these efforts support the board’s resale program and improved financial results for all Owners. It should be made clear that while most Sunset Harbor Owners pay their annual maintenance fees on time, some Owners do not. With these efforts, HV Global has driven reductions in year-end delinquencies over the past three years:
> ​
> Year​Delinquency Rate​2019​2.7%​2020​2.2%​2021​1.6%​
> Operational Costs
> 
> The board communication provides an example regarding the landscaping contract for the resort and associated costs. We would like to provide you with more detail regarding this example. HV Global partnered with your board in this effort. Ultimately, HV Global reduced the schedule and scope for the landscaper, while remaining focused on maintaining the property to the standards Owners have come to expect. HV Global utilized its in-house landscape manager, at no additional cost to Sunset Harbor, to align the best scope of work in the request for proposal and to ensure the bids met the needs of the association and were in line with the market. Additionally, HV Global was able to use its buying power of its _Hyatt Residence Club_ Avendra agreement to negotiate a lower cost for Sunset Harbor. HV Global worked with the board toward a better outcome for the Owners and to date has seen improved financial benefits while achieving the needed resort experience. It is also worth noting that the vendor recently requested an increase in its rate mid-contract, but with HV Global’s leverage with a national procurement company, HV Global was able to stave off any immediate increase.
> In terms of housekeeping costs, HV Global continues to bid all work competitively with contracted services on a regular basis, in an effort to find the best value for the association and its members. The Key West labor market has seen extreme level of cost increases (most notably in the housekeeping area), which are affecting all local businesses. This challenging labor market has resulted in off-cycle wage increases for housekeeping, front desk, and engineering staff in order to retain crucial staffing levels. Additionally, the local housekeeping provider notified last summer that a 30% increase would be needed to maintain current staffing levels at the resort. HV Global immediately sought competitive bids from other providers while negotiating with the current vendor. Working with the board during detailed budget reviews, HV Global eventually determined that the best value for the association was to retain the current vendor. However, HV Global was successful in negotiating improved staffing efficiencies and processes and reduced the projected cost increase by 12%.
> HV Global provides updated expense information on a monthly basis to your board of directors, as well as an analysis of the increases in materials and labor costs in the Key West market.
> 
> We Value You and Are Here to Listen
> 
> The Hyatt Vacation Ownership team is actively working to address important issues that have been raised by Owners, such as transaction fees and reservation windows. We are working to ensure that existing Owners wanting to stay at their home resort continue to retain all the rights they have today, while adding incremental options for Owners who would like to use their ownership to access new vacation possibilities.
> 
> We hope that you find this information useful and, if you have any questions, we are available to answer them. We are planning a webinar to help address any outstanding questions on June 22, 2022, from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Eastern Time.



Thanks you for posting additional information.


----------



## ScoopKona

dbmarch said:


> What is the boards perspective on this?    What happens if it the vote goes through?



I don't speak for the board and I do not own at SH. But I've been watching this closely.

The board recommends Yes/Yes votes to change management companies AND leave the Hyatt residence club.

If that happens, Sunset Harbor will need to find a new exchange company -- either RCI or Dial-An-Exchange (it's called something else now). Everybody still owns what they own. All the club fees go away, resulting in much lower MFs. 

Since the vast majority of the owners use what they own, that's that. For the few who like to trade, they will have no problems finding someone who would GLADLY trade their Beach House/Windward week with them. Even week-for-week is completely lopsided in favor of the Windward/Beach side. Sunset Harbor is the premium real estate on the island -- you'd have to buy the Hemingway House or Sloppy Joe's to own something more attractive. Even the Southernmost House, lovely as it is, is further from "the action" than Sunset Harbor. So the person who owns Week 1 or Fantasy Fest in SH is going to have no problems finding someone who considers trading Beach House a major, major upgrade.

That's as succinct as I can make it. As a Beach House owner, I would prefer SH stay in the program. But it's a no-brainer to me how I'd vote if I was a SH owner.


----------



## dioxide45

Can they even have a Yes/No or No/Yes vote. What if they vote do drop management but stay in the club? That seems like it would be an odd arrangement and I am thinking that HRC could just pull the club out from under them?


----------



## Pathways

dioxide45 said:


> Can they even have a Yes/No or No/Yes vote. What if they vote do drop management but stay in the club? That seems like it would be an odd arrangement and I am thinking that HRC could just pull the club out from under them?


All combinations are possible.  The BOD must follow procedures with a vote like this.  That doesn't mean Hyatt would choose to continue with one, and not the other.


----------



## bizaro86

The fact the letter from Hyatt doesn't address the board's claim that the management fee is going up means the management fee is going up. 

If it wasn't, that would have been in there.


----------



## dsmrp

Just curious (I have no skin in the game),  is there an end date for SH's management contract with Hyatt?
I guess usually the contracts are renewed at each HRC resort without the owners being aware of it. 
Hypothetically, if the SH owners vote to remove Hyatt as mgmt company, and the contract is ending in fairly near future, wouldn't that just give the BOD more leverage to negotiate a more favorable contract with Hyatt?


----------



## ScoopKona

dsmrp said:


> Just curious (I have no skin in the game),  is there an end date for SH's management contract with Hyatt?
> I guess usually the contracts are renewed at each HRC resort without the owners being aware of it.
> Hypothetically, if the SH owners vote to remove Hyatt as mgmt company, and the contract is ending in fairly near future, wouldn't that just give the BOD more leverage to negotiate a more favorable contract with Hyatt?



No. I don't think it's this. The BOD clearly wants out. The only question is if the rank and file wants out. If they study up, I think they will. I'd put better than even money on them leaving. The people who own 3, 4, 5, 8 weeks there? They're done. And I would be, too.


----------



## dbmarch

Was there an email regarding the vote?   Or is this the announcement?


----------



## Sapper

If anyone has the webinar log in info, please pass it along. I’d like to hear how Hyatt/MVC responds to some of the BoD financial complaints where the format is live. Hyatt/MVC failed to address to the BoD complaints in the email they sent out today.


----------



## Kal

Sapper said:


> If anyone has the webinar log in info, please pass it along. I’d like to hear how Hyatt/MVC responds to some of the BoD financial complaints where the format is live. Hyatt/MVC failed to address to the BoD complaints in the email they sent out today.


Do you really think Hyatt/MVC will address any of those financial issues???  This will be carefully controlled with heavy emphasis on patting themselves on the back.  All of their shills (as we see here) will dominate the discussion sucking up to Hyatt/MVC.  They really need to limit the participation to HSH owners.  We already know where non-owners stand, and that doesn't matter.  Wouldn't it be fun to force their hand and demand a commitment to hold the Hyatt Management fee at the current level.  And second, to eliminate that fee on reserves.  And then for kicks, let's force them to eliminate the Club fee on all units except the one owned.

That would be a good start, BUT IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.


----------



## scootr5

ScoopLV said:


> If that happens, Sunset Harbor will need to find a new exchange company -- either RCI or Dial-An-Exchange (it's called something else now).



I believe I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Is there some reason they could not stay in II as an independent?


----------



## dioxide45

dsmrp said:


> Just curious (I have no skin in the game),  is there an end date for SH's management contract with Hyatt?
> I guess usually the contracts are renewed at each HRC resort without the owners being aware of it.
> Hypothetically, if the SH owners vote to remove Hyatt as mgmt company, and the contract is ending in fairly near future, wouldn't that just give the BOD more leverage to negotiate a more favorable contract with Hyatt?


I would expect the contract is on an auto renewal process or really just open ended. Thus it can't be just allowed to expire. It will renew unless a vote to exit the contract is done.


----------



## ScoopKona

scootr5 said:


> I believe I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Is there some reason they could not stay in II as an independent?



I think it's HIGHLY unlikely. Hyatt and II are both owned by Marriott. I think it's unlikely they're going to say, "No hard feelings, keep with II" if the owners vote to leave.

I could be wrong of course. But I think it will require a move.


----------



## ivywag

Each owner could just purchase an II private membership if they wished to trade.  Since we are forced to buy an annual II membership with each of our other Hyatt weeks (it’s a lot of money, folks), we’ll just use Sunset Harbor and trade another through II if we ever want to use Interval.


----------



## ScoopKona

ivywag said:


> Each owner could just purchase an II private membership if they wished to trade.  Since we are forced to buy an annual II membership with each of our other Hyatt weeks (it’s a lot of money, folks), we’ll just use Sunset Harbor and trade another through II if we ever want to use Interval.



I think it is very likely that Marriott will spitefully ban you from II if you leave. They own 'em both, after all. But there's always RCI and Dial-An-Exchange. And SH is going to trade like a monster until the day Hurricane Omega scours the Keys off the map.


----------



## dioxide45

ivywag said:


> Each owner could just purchase an II private membership if they wished to trade.  Since we are forced to buy an annual II membership with each of our other Hyatt weeks (it’s a lot of money, folks), we’ll just use Sunset Harbor and trade another through II if we ever want to use Interval.


Wouldn't the resorts have to affiliate with II first? Right now you make II exchanges using the club. You don't actually deposit your week into II, but rather just a chunk of points?


----------



## dioxide45

ScoopLV said:


> I think it is very likely that Marriott will spitefully ban you from II if you leave. They own 'em both, after all. But there's always RCI and Dial-An-Exchange. And SH is going to trade like a monster until the day Hurricane Omega scours the Keys off the map.


Dial-an-Exchange is now 7-Across. There are other independant exchange companies like Third Home, SFX, RTX.


----------



## bizaro86

ScoopLV said:


> I think it's HIGHLY unlikely. Hyatt and II are both owned by Marriott. I think it's unlikely they're going to say, "No hard feelings, keep with II" if the owners vote to leave.
> 
> I could be wrong of course. But I think it will require a move.



I actually think the board will be able to affiliate with II independently if they want to.

I mentioned Villas at Cave Creek earlier, which ditched Vistana. They are in II as an independent now, which seems like a pretty strong precedent to me. Kicking them out of II when it's non-exclusive actually seems like a potential anti-trust issue to me.

But even so SH would trade very well through a higher end option like Third Home, and I suspect something like that is where they'd end up.


----------



## dioxide45

bizaro86 said:


> I actually think the board will be able to affiliate with II independently if they want to.
> 
> I mentioned Villas at Cave Creek earlier, which ditched Vistana. They are in II as an independent now, which seems like a pretty strong precedent to me. Kicking them out of II when it's non-exclusive actually seems like a potential anti-trust issue to me.
> 
> But even so SH would trade very well through a higher end option like Third Home, and I suspect something like that is where they'd end up.


I think it will come down to animosity of the board toward MVW vs MVW blocking the resort. MVW will take the income that SH owners may provide by being affiliated with II. I don't see them not allowing the resort to affiliate. Will the resort want to affiliate with II and it also being owned by MVW? As to Villas of Cave Creek. They ditched Vistana before Vistana was even owned by ILG. So there really is no precedent there. They may have also been previously affiliated with II as a resort since Vistana resorts affiliate on their own where I think Hyatt is affiliated as a club and not at the resort level.


----------



## Kal

magicjourney said:


> It's definitely a hot topic. Hyatt Residence Club just sent out an email:
> 
> ​
> Re: _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_ — HV Global Management Corporation ("HV Global")
> 
> Dear Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association Member:
> 
> Since joining the management team, I have enjoyed spending time meeting with boards and visiting the fabulous resorts in the _Hyatt Residence Club_ portfolio, and I can immediately understand why you love Sunset Harbor so much.
> 
> I am writing today because we have just been made aware that the board of directors of Sunset Harbor Resort Condominium Association has scheduled a meeting of the association membership for July 14 to vote on whether to terminate the Management Contract and terminate the Club Resort Agreement currently in effect. Upon learning this news, we wanted to connect with you as a valued Owner and to thank you for your ownership. In our view, we are part of the fabric of _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, having provided quality services for over 20 years, and we believe it is critically important that you also hear from us as part of this process.
> 
> Serving Sunset Harbor since 1994
> 
> Since 1994, HV Global Management has had the pleasure of serving as the management company for _Hyatt Residence Club Key West, Sunset Harbor_, and we have a strong desire to continue serving as your management company. Our goal at opening was to create a product that would provide flexibility and the highest quality home resort for all Sunset Harbor Owners. In addition to creating a dedicated window in which every Owner would have the guaranteed right to reserve their fixed unit/week, we also created the option of exchanging into other Club Resorts, Interval International®, and World of Hyatt®. While some Owners may have no desire to exchange, we want to remind all Owners that these flexible use options are provided by Hyatt Vacation Ownership and would cease immediately upon termination of the Club Resort Agreement. As additional benefits are expected to be added to the program in the future, we hope that you will view those as additional travel opportunities for you and your family.
> 
> _Hyatt Residence Club_ is and has always been dedicated to providing quality branded experiences for our Owners. The ability to do that is only possible through our team and the lasting relationships that they’ve created with Owners over the span of three decades. Sunset Harbor’s long-term tenured resort colleagues (some as long as 20 years) see you all just like family and are deeply committed to you and your ownership experience. I imagine each of you can think of a familiar face or two who has repeatedly helped you make unforgettable memories during your time in Key West.
> 
> You may have heard that Leidys Torres, General Manager, has recently moved from Key West after a six-year stint to be closer to family. Though we know many of you will miss Leidys, we are actively in the search and interview process to fill this integral role. Thankfully, we have two other sister _Hyatt Residence Club_ properties in Key West, which allow us to support and assist you during this interim as needed, and a task-force manager from another _Hyatt Residence Club_ resort filling the current need. We consider ourselves fortunate to be able to continue providing this level of support during a time of transition in such a challenging labor market.
> 
> As your management company, we have a solid and strong reputation in the vacation ownership industry and specifically within the Key West market. In addition, we recently dedicated a core group of leaders — myself included, along with Stephanie Butera (who wrote to you earlier in the year) — who are 100 percent dedicated to Hyatt Vacation Ownership. That team has been working hard over the last year to build the future for the brand, which includes maintaining exceptional service and management support, listening to Owners, and addressing Owners’ concerns and ideas. There are many positive changes being worked on that balance the needs of Owners who simply want to use their home resort while also enabling Owners who want to explore new vacation options.
> 
> Upcoming Vote — Hearing from Us
> 
> As your management company, we believe it is important that you receive comprehensive information regarding the issues you are being asked to vote on. To assist you in making a fully informed decision about your management company, we have outlined a few points for your consideration:
> 
> Association Funds and Rental Income
> 
> Over the past five years the management company, working with the board of directors, has managed to keep the maintenance fee growth to an average increase of only 3.2%.
> HV Global takes its role as a good steward of your association’s funds very seriously and works in partnership with your board of directors. There are many ways HV Global and the Hyatt Vacation Ownership business successfully support Sunset Harbor including insurance programs as part of a broader master portfolio, buying power using a national procurement service provider, Avendra, as well as through parent company, MVW, and even specifically leveraging our buying power in Key West as we manage multiple resorts in the market.
> Each year, the management company works to negotiate favorable and competitive insurance coverage on behalf of the associations that it manages. As the volatile insurance market continues to deteriorate, our risk management team actively works to procure insurance programs specific to timeshare resorts, like Sunset Harbor. By participating in our portfolio insurance programs (versus stand-alone), the management company is able to procure insurance programs with a breadth of coverages for which the association benefits.
> Club Rental income benefits all Owners in your annual budget, and the details are outlined in the Club Resort Agreement. The rental income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $88,000 in 2019, 2020, and 2021. In addition, rental income for the past five years exceeded $433,000.
> Fees
> 
> Resort fee income refers to fees collected from all renters at Sunset Harbor. HV Global has worked with the board of directors to increase this fee to offset increased costs, which helps reduce maintenance fee increases. The resort fee income benefited the HOA budget and all Owners by over $31,000 in 2021.
> Parking fee income has also been a focus for HV Global and the board of directors. There is no on-site parking for Sunset Harbor Owners and guests, so a parking agreement remains a cost of doing business for the association. The expense of parking is funded by maintenance fees as well as nightly fees for non-Owners. In 2021, HV Global successfully collected over $91,000 in parking fees and a significant share of that association income came from non-Owners, including renters and exchangers.
> Collection Process
> 
> HV Global has worked hand in hand with your board over the past few years to improve collection processes and outcomes. HV Global has continued to improve the collection process, provided collection forecasts to your board, and has shown positive results in improved collections. All these efforts support the board’s resale program and improved financial results for all Owners. It should be made clear that while most Sunset Harbor Owners pay their annual maintenance fees on time, some Owners do not. With these efforts, HV Global has driven reductions in year-end delinquencies over the past three years:
> ​
> Year​Delinquency Rate​2019​2.7%​2020​2.2%​2021​1.6%​
> Operational Costs
> 
> The board communication provides an example regarding the landscaping contract for the resort and associated costs. We would like to provide you with more detail regarding this example. HV Global partnered with your board in this effort. Ultimately, HV Global reduced the schedule and scope for the landscaper, while remaining focused on maintaining the property to the standards Owners have come to expect. HV Global utilized its in-house landscape manager, at no additional cost to Sunset Harbor, to align the best scope of work in the request for proposal and to ensure the bids met the needs of the association and were in line with the market. Additionally, HV Global was able to use its buying power of its _Hyatt Residence Club_ Avendra agreement to negotiate a lower cost for Sunset Harbor. HV Global worked with the board toward a better outcome for the Owners and to date has seen improved financial benefits while achieving the needed resort experience. It is also worth noting that the vendor recently requested an increase in its rate mid-contract, but with HV Global’s leverage with a national procurement company, HV Global was able to stave off any immediate increase.
> In terms of housekeeping costs, HV Global continues to bid all work competitively with contracted services on a regular basis, in an effort to find the best value for the association and its members. The Key West labor market has seen extreme level of cost increases (most notably in the housekeeping area), which are affecting all local businesses. This challenging labor market has resulted in off-cycle wage increases for housekeeping, front desk, and engineering staff in order to retain crucial staffing levels. Additionally, the local housekeeping provider notified last summer that a 30% increase would be needed to maintain current staffing levels at the resort. HV Global immediately sought competitive bids from other providers while negotiating with the current vendor. Working with the board during detailed budget reviews, HV Global eventually determined that the best value for the association was to retain the current vendor. However, HV Global was successful in negotiating improved staffing efficiencies and processes and reduced the projected cost increase by 12%.
> HV Global provides updated expense information on a monthly basis to your board of directors, as well as an analysis of the increases in materials and labor costs in the Key West market.
> 
> We Value You and Are Here to Listen
> 
> The Hyatt Vacation Ownership team is actively working to address important issues that have been raised by Owners, such as transaction fees and reservation windows. We are working to ensure that existing Owners wanting to stay at their home resort continue to retain all the rights they have today, while adding incremental options for Owners who would like to use their ownership to access new vacation possibilities.
> 
> We hope that you find this information useful and, if you have any questions, we are available to answer them. We are planning a webinar to help address any outstanding questions on June 22, 2022, from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Eastern Time.


There are different formats for Webinars.  One is a full exchange of answers to questions raised by the audience, ad hoc (no advance preview of the questions).  The other which is for questions to be submitted in writing in advance of the session.  Nobody but the host sees all the questions.  Then the host hand picks the questions to be answered.

Any ideas how this one will occur???  If it's a honest full exchange of question/answers it will be good.  If it's the latter, it's a staged circus with a side show of self congratulations.  The shills will have fun.  That format will tell you all you need to know without hearing a single word.  The betting windows are now open!


----------



## Kal

kwsunset said:


> ...This BOD member I talked to,  owns more than one week, at HSH and doesn't use them anymore, just rents them out, and stays at another rental in town...


I'm curious here, are you suggesting that BOD member is a lesser person?  I wonder if renting in Key West would give that person a heightened value being close to HSH for a lengthy period of time and has a insider's view of the pulse of both Key West and HSH members across many weeks.  Just thinking...


----------



## IslandTime

Kal said:


> I wonder if renting in Key West would give that person a heightened value being close to HSH for a lengthy period of time and has a insider's view of the pulse of both Key West and HSH members across many weeks.  Just thinking...



My thoughts exactly. I trust he knows exactly what's going on and has much more insight than I do.


----------



## AJCts411

dbmarch said:


> Was there an email regarding the vote?   Or is this the announcement?



Every owner received a email.


----------



## HenryT

ScoopLV said:


> I think it's HIGHLY unlikely. Hyatt and II are both owned by Marriott. I think it's unlikely they're going to say, "No hard feelings, keep with II" if the owners vote to leave.
> 
> I could be wrong of course. But I think it will require a move.


I respectfully disagree with your perspective. I think Hyatt/Marriott would be shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting HSH owners from enrolling in II. They are fully aware of the demand for HSH and I think they will want those II exchange dollars.

If they made decisions based on being hurt that HSH left them, then they and their stockholders would have a bigger problem.


----------



## AJCts411

A few fun facts.  Regarding another exchange company or II.  Forgotten here is the fact the majority of owners use their weeks (including renting) and do not want the costs of a exchange company that they can no opt out of.   
Hyatt preys on your emotions in their letter...workers there some 20 years.  If Hyatt is so big and powerful in KW, why do they not absorb them or in reality, a new management company will need more staff, those their are the logical choice. 
Hyatt says it is controling costs, would of gone up without them.  Management fees are a percentage of  what I will call maintence budget. That percentage is going up. Some cost savings. Remember as our costs for operating the resort goes up so does Hyatt fees and now they want a bigger cut. And no mention that Hyatt wants a cut of our reserves to now be include. about 150,000 more.  
So easy to challenge Hyatt letter, 90% reads like it was written by a political spin doctor. 
Like others I do not buy for one second the newbies are anything but shills for Hyatt. Oddly enough same shilling action on Facebook...were I am accused of belonging to a cabal, an operative of the BOD LOL.  Shows one just how desperate the management company is.
Lastly I wonder the legality of  Hyatt Management communicating directly with the owners in opposing of the elected board?  Any owners here have access to the owners email?


----------



## Digdot

AJCts411 said:


> Breakaway fees?  There is a management agreement, and a club agreement, Legal contracts end and are renewed.  This is not Twitter.  The BOD stated their reasoning to support this effort.  Exact saving, not calculable until the new management proposals are reviewed.   Want a guess,  up to 40% by what other similar resorts are charged.  The no votes seem to be using "not enough information" as their reasoning, yet raise fears by questioning the inapplicable.  If you own you have a vote,  my two are a yes.
> 
> I've read all of the information presented by the BOD and it is sufficient to gain my yes vote.   I trust the BOD did the due diligence required, and I do not trust Hyatt to treat me fairly as an owner, it is in their sales pitches for portfolio "owners are the problem" and Hyatt stopped selling weeks.  Now only pushing Portfolio.  My question, where was the vote to allow portfolio?
> The fear mongering on a evil cabal running the board is unfounded, all of the plotting against the owners has been by Hyatt.


My biggest concern is the cost of this possible transition 
I KNOW it is not free 
Legal fees alone could be extremely significant 
I do not know the numbers cause obviously it was not disclosed. I feel that was intentional
Not happy and voting no!


----------



## kwsunset

Kal said:


> I'm curious here, are you suggesting that BOD member is a lesser person?  I wonder if renting in Key West would give that person a heightened value being close to HSH for a lengthy period of time and has a insider's view of the pulse of both Key West and HSH members across many weeks.  Just thinking...


No not thinking them a lesser person at all, I quite like them actually. All I ment was if they aren't using their units any longer, why do they care if SH stays in the club or not.


----------



## Kal

kwsunset said:


> No not thinking them a lesser person at all, I quite like them actually. All I ment was if they aren't using their units any longer, why do they care if SH stays in the club or not.


Skyrocketing charges from Hyatt


----------



## AJCts411

Digdot said:


> My biggest concern is the cost of this possible transition
> I KNOW it is not free
> Legal fees alone could be extremely significant
> I do not know the numbers cause obviously it was not disclosed. I feel that was intentional
> Not happy and voting no!



One can guess, imagine, etc., but significant costs would need to be disclosed by the BOD as a matter of complying to their legal duties.  There is no hidden agenda as you like to imply to smear the BOD, but the thought makes for some degree fear mongering by shills, about all portfolio/club has left to offer.  I say portfolio because they have 127 votes.  The owners of Sunset via the elected BOD choose the management company and if they wish to remain associated with the club.  Fact is, proof is that leaving has benefited the owners in Aspen.  OH look no huge lawyer fees.  
The below is copied from the Hyatt Facebook forum.  No this is not a shill or a cabal member, a real long time owner.....

"We own at Beaver Creek Residence Club and Aspen and I can personally tell you that in the 6 mos since firing Hyatt (after interviewing competent and competitive management companies) hiring a leading Colorado management company, voting to drop Hyatt exchange program and becoming   members  of an ELITE EXCHANGE program our property values have risen in  and our inventory has almost evaporated. The homeowners at Aspen are happy we FINALLY accomplished this change. Best thing that could have happened in Aspen.
Beaver Creek is still struggling with dropping values and so much inventory “Hyatts  designated broker”  says don’t list unless you’re willing to lose money….."


----------



## magicjourney

AJCts411 said:


> "We own at Beaver Creek Residence Club and Aspen and I can personally tell you that in the 6 mos since firing Hyatt (after interviewing competent and competitive management companies) hiring a leading Colorado management company, voting to drop Hyatt exchange program and becoming   members  of an ELITE EXCHANGE program our property values have risen in  and our inventory has almost evaporated. The homeowners at Aspen are happy we FINALLY accomplished this change. Best thing that could have happened in Aspen.
> Beaver Creek is still struggling with dropping values and so much inventory “Hyatts  designated broker”  says don’t list unless you’re willing to lose money….."



Glad to see insights from Aspen's owner. High MFs always drag the values down, especially you have to pay two club dues for most Hyatt Ski resorts as they are sold as fixed+floating weeks.  Wondering if we can interview MVC?


----------



## ScoopKona

magicjourney said:


> Wondering if we can interview MVC?



I think it's safe to say that MVC's perspective is in full-view, thanks to the new users who registered in the past week.


----------



## AJCts411

A bit off the Sunset topic, but there are rumblings by Beaver Creek owners to do the same as Aspen...
One has to speculate that ignoring the user owners, pushing portfolio, the talking points sales uses to push portfolio like how we owners are the problem, ( I add..not wanting  to spend another 30K lol) how all of that is now biting them in the butt?  Looking down the road, how viable will HRC be if more owner controlled properties leave HRC for greenr pastures?  How does that play with portfolio sales, availability, viability?


----------



## dioxide45

ScoopLV said:


> I think it's safe to say that MVC's perspective is in full-view, thanks to the new users who registered in the past week.


Why only call out the newly registered users who are against the vote and not also call out those new registrants that are for Yes?


----------



## echino

I think Hyatt has to urgently make a difficult decision to start charging only one $157 club dues per owner, like other timeshares do. Then they maybe have a chance to sway a vote to hang on to SH. If Hyatt is greedy and not smart enough to do at least that, urgently, right now, they risk losing not only SH, but other resorts with high owner occupancy.


----------



## Mongoose

echino said:


> I think Hyatt has to urgently make a difficult decision to start charging only one $157 club dues per owner, like other timeshares do. Then they maybe have a chance to sway a vote to hang on to SH. If Hyatt is greedy and not smart enough to do at least that, urgently, right now, they risk losing not only SH, but other resorts with high owner occupancy.


More than that, they need to be laser focused on keeping their resorts by keeping their owners happy.  It should be a no-brainer to keep the Hyatt brand.  A loss like this and Aspen is not easily replaced.  The question is, do they actually care?


----------



## ScoopKona

echino said:


> If Hyatt is greedy and not smart enough to do at least that, urgently, right now, they risk losing not only SH, but other resorts with high owner occupancy.



I agree. And I think that anyone who is thinking of buying a resale week at high owner-occupancy resorts should do so immediately. I envision Hyatt exercising ROFR on everything they can -- to put a thumb on the scale on any future votes. What I don't think will happen is MVC seeing this as a wake-up call to fix their problems. I think it is more likely they will try to tamp down secession votes the old-fashioned way -- buying them.


----------



## dioxide45

I would agree they need to change the pricing structure of their club fee. The $157+13% on every week owned is ridiculous. No other timeshare system I know of has such a structure. The problem is, if they change it at SH, they have to change it everywhere. That won't be easy to explain on the next investor call. MVW is all about stock price. Any perceived drop in revenue will result in a drop in the price of stock. Not only hurting the shareholders but probably many executives who have received stock options. Something else needs to give with the management fee. 13% going to 15% and being charged on operating and reserves seems to be in DRI territory. Change it to 10% and charge against operating and reserves or keep it at 13-15% and charge it only against operating. This is more in line with the management fee at other brands. You will never get a fixed management fee from a name brand timeshare operator.


----------



## SteveinHNL

ScoopLV said:


> I agree. And I think that anyone who is thinking of buying a resale week at high owner-occupancy resorts should do so immediately. I envision Hyatt exercising ROFR on everything they can -- to put a thumb on the scale on any future votes. What I don't think will happen is MVC seeing this as a wake-up call to fix their problems. I think it is more likely they will try to tamp down secession votes the old-fashioned way -- buying them.



Which resorts would be considered high owner-occupancy resorts?


----------



## ScoopKona

SteveinHNL said:


> Which resorts would be considered high owner-occupancy resorts?



Sunset Harbor, Maui, Carmel, and the ski resorts (but anyone who bought spring or fall is a trader). Basically, the more high-dollar the zip code, the more likely they'll break away.

The good thing is that the trading power of what you own is based on its location, not the name on the lobby. And "Hyatt" may very well get schooled on that. Maybe we should start calling it HINO -- Hyatt in Name Only.

Don't get me wrong, I still recommend the system. If anyone asked me "what brand of timeshare should I buy?" I would still recommend this. Losing Sunset Harbor would be a blow -- but not an insurmountable one. And everything else in Florida, Texas and Arizona is quite safe. Unless MVC decides to gut the system because they can't figure out a way to make piles of cash by exploiting us.


----------



## SteveinHNL

So if I want to buy High Sierra "one day" I should consider expediting that instead of buying something with the intention of trading into it as frequently as I am able.


----------



## Kal

Resort pricing in the near term is a hard one to call.  For HSH, if this effort fails, then the Maintenance Fees increase substantially and no other financial changes occur, there will be widespread owner anger.  First by the lost, then the gouging.  Next year, it would be easy to vote Hyatt off the island.  In the meantime, prospective buyers and sellers won't know what to do.  My first thought would be resale prices will increase, but there will be some cherry picking of owners who want to bail.  Uncertainty always breeds change.  I would say HSH will remain in HIGHER DEMAND because the HRC outsiders will try harder to get in because access could be limited in out years.  For me, I'm a "buyer" because I'm confident Hyatt can't weather a 2 year storm and owners will kick their silly butt out the door.


----------



## ScoopKona

SteveinHNL said:


> So if I want to buy High Sierra "one day" I should consider expediting that instead of buying something with the intention of trading into it as frequently as I am able.



Depends. How often do you think you'll use what you own? If the answer is "almost never," just trade in and hope they don't leave. If the answer is, "I'm buying to use my week," start searching. Be patient, yes. But if a deal pops up, pounce on it.



Kal said:


> I would say HSH will remain in HIGHER DEMAND because the HRC outsiders will try harder to get in because access could be limited in out years.  For me, I'm a "buyer" because I'm confident Hyatt can't weather a 2 year storm and owners will kick their silly butt out the door.



It will be interesting to see how many resales are ROFR'd at SH in the event of a no vote. If the answer is 100%, we know how MVC feels about the possibility of losing SH. I don't know how many resales happen in a given year, or if this vote could lead to a spike in resales. 

I imagine MVC's calculus is, "We don't want to lose SH because then we can't sell it again. We don't want to change the fees because of all that sweet, sweet free money. If we give an inch to one resort, EVERY resort will want the same treatment. So let's buy all the weeks we can and put our thumb on the scale!"


----------



## Kal

ScoopLV said:


> Depends. How often do you think you'll use what you own? If the answer is "almost never," just trade in and hope they don't leave. If the answer is, "I'm buying to use my week," start searching. Be patient, yes. But if a deal pops up, pounce on it.
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how many resales are ROFR'd at SH in the event of a no vote. If the answer is 100%, we know how MVC feels about the possibility of losing SH. I don't know how many resales happen in a given year, or if this vote could lead to a spike in resales.
> 
> I imagine MVC's calculus is, "We don't want to lose SH because then we can't sell it again. We don't want to change the fees because of all that sweet, sweet free money. If we give an inch to one resort, EVERY resort will want the same treatment. So let's buy all the weeks we can and put our thumb on the scale!"


I don't think there is a medication that will cure MVC's terminal illness of being DIRT CHEAP.  Besides, they are knee-capped in dealing with their own overhead cost structure in buying a resale then "selling" it to the Portfolio.


----------



## ScoopKona

Kal said:


> I don't think there is a medication that will cure MVC's terminal illness of being DIRT CHEAP.  Besides, they are knee-capped in dealing with their own overhead cost structure in buying a resale then "selling" it to the Portfolio.



The big picture problem with the industry is OPCs and "gifts." It's the only way they know how to sell a timeshare. And it is also the worst way to go about it. 

Make a system that works, and is in people's self-interest to buy one, and they don't need the game-show hosts dangling free prizes in front of couples on vacation. A truly excellent system wouldn't even need salespeople -- just order takers and notaries to take care of the contracts. If I recall correctly, we had somewhere between a 10-20% success rate in Key West. So that meant we had to pay the OPC between 4 and 9 times, and do 4-to-9 giveaways; all on top of paying the van driver, the desk clerks, two commissions (broker and salesperson), and the contract people. That's an awful lot of mark-up just to sell something people want to own.

At least once a month, someone simply walked in and asked to buy a week. Usually it was because they were paying through the nose for Bike Week, Boat week, Lobster mini season, Fantasy Fest or Christmas/New Year's. I would run them through how everything works. And these people almost always paid in full with a credit card. 

I'd love to prove it to them -- Build a resort in Asheville, NC. And then no OPCs, no brokers or commissioned salespeople, and watch how fast it sells out selling at "cost plus a reasonable profit for the developer." They'd never even try it. They only know how to run a game show.


----------



## dioxide45

ScoopLV said:


> I'd love to prove it to them -- Build a resort in Asheville, NC. And then no OPCs, no brokers or commissioned salespeople, and watch how fast it sells out selling at "cost plus a reasonable profit for the developer." They'd never even try it. They only know how to run a game show.


One would think if it works, someone somewhere would have already tried the business model. DVC is perhaps about the only timeshare product out there that sells itself. It usually doesn't offer cash based incentives to get people in the door. But it also has a unique product. The fact remains that almost no one wants to buy a timeshare. Generally the construction cost is 40-50% of the sales price. Even if they cut the prices in half, people wouldn't be clamoring to buy them. Timeshare is a sold product through and through.


----------



## dsmrp

It's a little puzzling to me why Hyatt didn't implement a tiered club fee with a cap like MVC and Vistana have.  Marriott should have when they bought ILG/Hyatt,  but I guess they were concentrating on other matters and left Hyatt mgmt pretty much alone.  Still not a lot of forward thinking & planning for some owner satisfaction.  All their focus is on revenue generation.
If SH breaks away, will Hyatt throw some bones to the remaining HRC BODs and owners?

Maybe Marriott VW plans to sell Hyatt-Welk kit n'kaboodle off after they get revenue sales from Welk people, & convert Welk resorts. But who is left to buy?  Hilton bought Diamond, hopefully not Wyndham.


----------



## dioxide45

dsmrp said:


> Maybe they plan to sell it off after they get revenue sales from Welk people, convert Welk resorts.
> But who is left to buy? Hilton bought Diamond, hopefully not Wyndham.


Not sure who might be out there, but Bluegreen could look to get into the luxury game. I don't see any other hotel brands that would be willing to pick it up given the complexities that MVW faces with it and their license agreement with Hyatt.


----------



## AJCts411

You bring up an interesting point.  What will MVC do with hyatt?  Change terms?  Sell it off?  Big dangerous unknown.  Best to get out while we can.


----------



## Kal

AJCts411 said:


> You bring up an interesting point.  What will MVC do with hyatt?  Change terms?  Sell it off?  Big dangerous unknown.  Best to get out while we can.


What you are likely saying is don't count on the points exchange but rather the real estate that you own.  That way you have a place that you "own".  Not a good solution for people who bought cheap just to get the points.


----------



## ScoopKona

AJCts411 said:


> You bring up an interesting point.  What will MVC do with hyatt?  Change terms?  Sell it off?  Big dangerous unknown.  Best to get out while we can.



I'm holding on to my week until/unless the system is changed to the point it is no longer useful to me. At the end of the day, I own Boat week in the nicest unit at the Beach House. Someone is going to want it. And that is precisely what I told my then-fiancee when we bought this as our very first piece of real estate together -- "Either a hurricane destroys this and we all split an insurance check; or they monkey with the system to the point we don't want it any more and sell it to a race enthusiast. Either way, it's going to be great resorts for less than $100/night."


----------



## SteveinHNL

Kal said:


> What you are likely saying is don't count on the points exchange but rather the real estate that you own.  That way you have a place that you "own".  Not a good solution for people who bought cheap just to get the points.


(cough cough)


----------



## mjm1

I have been following this thread with interest even though we don’t own SH. I hope they don’t leave HRC, but understand the reasoning of owners who own there and only use or rent their units.

We bought at Pinon Pointe last year primarily because we have fallen in love with Sedona and the resort. We bought a unit and week that we really wanted and plan to stay in the 1BR side every year, while using the remaining points there or somewhere else in the system. A side benefit is that the MF’s are one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the system. So, that works well for us.

However, like others, we don’t like that we would have to pay another full club dues fee should we add more units. One would hope that MVC, as the parent company, would implement a club dues arrangement more in line with either the DC program or Vistana’s. Of course that would have an impact on the bottom line. But if that helps keep resorts like SH in the fold it would likely be worth it.

Best regards.

Mike


----------



## Emerson

Here are some questions  that the SH board needs to answer. Was the decision to exit Hyatt/Marriott vote unanimous? We’re all board members in attendance or on the telephone for the meeting ? If the vote wasn’t unanimous and less than 5 board members voting was there a dissenting opinion? I would caution all owners that voting prior to having all the information could be danheroism.


----------



## Emerson

Dangerous


----------



## ScoopKona

Emerson said:


> Dangerous



I think what's dangerous is prolonging this another year and giving MVC a chance to simply overwhelm the owners through ROFR.


----------



## dioxide45

ScoopLV said:


> I think what's dangerous is prolonging this another year and giving MVC a chance to simply overwhelm the owners through ROFR.


Time to get out while the getting is good.


----------



## jabberwocky

Emerson said:


> Here are some questions  that the SH board needs to answer. Was the decision to exit Hyatt/Marriott vote unanimous? We’re all board members in attendance or on the telephone for the meeting ? If the vote wasn’t unanimous and less than 5 board members voting was there a dissenting opinion? I would caution all owners that voting prior to having all the information could be danheroism.


Why don’t you call and request the minutes of the board meeting?  The answers you seek would be there. Any SH owner should be able to do so.


----------



## Emerson

Good idea, however the meeting was held as an executive board meeting. Meeting minutes have not been released. The question is WHY!!!!!


----------



## jabberwocky

Emerson said:


> Good idea, however the meeting was held as an executive board meeting. Meeting minutes have not been released. The question is WHY!!!!!


What is your source that the vote was in a board executive session?  I don’t recall seeing that reported elsewhere until this thread - but I could have missed it.  I don’t feel like doing your homework for you.

If you wish to make claims about governance irregularities please ensure you have facts and evidence to back up your allegations.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Good idea, however the meeting was held as an executive board meeting. Meeting minutes have not been released. The question is WHY!!!!!


Can you post the documentation that this was an executive session?  You need to share this otherwise we're led to believe it is an opinion.


----------



## INCHWORM

Kal said:


> Skyrocketing charges from Hyatt


And my gas is skyrocketing and my new shoes cost more and the new deck cost me 30% more because materials skyrocketed, and my lawnmowers service went up 15% this year.  What hasn't gone up? When I purchased my timeshares,  I always knew the MFs would increase.  And I "thought" I knew that the properties would always be part of Hyatt with all the benefits thereof.
I got quite a bit nervous when Marriott bought Hyatt but they seemed to mostly leave it alone so I thought we were mostly safe and in the clear UNTIL NOW...now the BOD is encouraging self inflicted wounds or death of the property (MY personal perspective - you're entitled to your own perspective,  but No one will convince me otherwise )


----------



## INCHWORM

ScoopLV said:


> I agree. And I think that anyone who is thinking of buying a resale week at high owner-occupancy resorts should do so immediately. I envision Hyatt exercising ROFR on everything they can -- to put a thumb on the scale on any future votes. What I don't think will happen is MVC seeing this as a wake-up call to fix their problems. I think it is more likely they will try to tamp down secession votes the old-fashioned way -- buying them.


Hmmm...know anyone who's in the resale industry???


----------



## dioxide45

Isn't ROFR written into the underlying CC&R for most timeshare resorts. It isn't really part of the management agreement. So when a resort manager steps away, who becomes the beneficiary of the ROFR provision in the underlying condominium documents?


----------



## ScoopKona

INCHWORM said:


> Hmmm...know anyone who's in the resale industry???



No, I don't know anyone in the resale industry. I've been out of the timeshare business for 20 years. And out of the real estate business for 10. I'm a coffee farmer in Hawaii now. 

If you were here for more than a few days, you would know this already. I don't hide anything. Neither do any of the other long-timers here -- we've been discussing this product for 15-20 years. Many of us know each other in real life. But nobody knows you.

We DO agree on one major point -- there are a bunch of corporate shills participating on this thread, trying to change the outcome to "what's best for Marriott." We absolutely agree on that.


----------



## INCHWORM

ScoopLV said:


> No, I don't know anyone in the resale industry. I've been out of the timeshare business for 20 years. And out of the real estate business for 10. I'm a coffee farmer in Hawaii now.
> 
> If you were here for more than a few days, you would know this already. I don't hide anything. Neither do any of the other long-timers here -- we've been discussing this product for 15-20 years. Many of us know each other in real life. But nobody knows you.
> 
> We DO agree on one major point -- there are a bunch of corporate shills participating on this thread, trying to change the outcome to "what's best for Marriott." We absolutely agree on that.


----------



## INCHWORM

Isn't it interesting that everytime someone disagrees with your POV regarding your support for the BOD position,  you refer to them as corporate shills. Not sure why you can't fathom the concept that some of us really enjoy our Hyatt timeshares,  utilize them to the fullest and are just plain old timeshare owners with no corporate or real estate affiliation. 

I get to Hawaii for a few weeks every year,  so maybe we'll bump into each other sometime (without even knowing it)


----------



## Emerson

I only post facts!  Believe them fine, choose not to believe them, fine as well.


----------



## AJCts411

Why do we need Hyatt/MVC at Sunset?  How many resort management companies might be lining up to expand their business. Opportunities like this are rare.  Sunset is in one of the best locations in KW, really do not need MVC O/A HRC.


----------



## INCHWORM

AJCts411 said:


> Why do we need Hyatt/MVC at Sunset?  How many resort management companies might be lining up to expand their business. Opportunities like this are rare.  Sunset is in one of the best locations in KW, really do not need MVC O/A HRC.


Because IMO the others have lower quality trade options than Hyatt.  (I would personally be disappointed to join RCI and this is why I never purchased Hilton timeshares...because I wasn't impressed with my options when they marketed to me.) 
If this vote goes through,  I'll probably use my SH ownership occasionally (until the quality of the place goes down) after which I'll be renting to outsiders so for everyone disparaging the RIF-RAF that come in via HPP...watch out because outsiders haven't paid ANY maintenance fees,  dues etc. At least the HPP owners have joined the system and actually pay higher MF on their 2200 points than SH owners do. So we shouldn't be so dreadful of HPP trade-ins. They're "owners" too and hopefully have a vested interest in maintaining the quality of all properties that they might hope to trade into.
As far as "exclusivity" of our SH property...one of my business partners owns several Marriott Properties (none with Hyatt) and he has been able to trade into SH through II on numerous occasions and this was well before Marriott bought Hyatt and bought II...so much for how "exclusive" the property is?


----------



## HenryT

INCHWORM said:


> Because IMO the others have lower quality trade options than Hyatt.  (I would personally be disappointed to join RCI and this is why I never purchased Hilton timeshares...because I wasn't impressed with my options when they marketed to me.)
> If this vote goes through,  I'll probably use my SH ownership occasionally (until the quality of the place goes down) after which I'll be renting to outsiders so for everyone disparaging the RIF-RAF that come in via HPP...watch out because outsiders haven't paid ANY maintenance fees,  dues etc. At least the HPP owners have joined the system and actually pay higher MF on their 2200 points than SH owners do. So we shouldn't be so dreadful of HPP trade-ins. They're "owners" too and hopefully have a vested interest in maintaining the quality of all properties that they might hope to trade into.
> As far as "exclusivity" of our SH property...one of my business partners owns several Marriott Properties (none with Hyatt) and he has been able to trade into SH through II on numerous occasions and this was well before Marriott bought Hyatt and bought II...so much for how "exclusive" the property is?



Hyatt/MVC has 3 goals:

Satisfy the stockholders/investors by increasing stock prices
Selling new timeshares/programs (related to above)
Satisfying current owners
Somehow they have to balance the above 3 goals but no matter how they balance them, current owners are losing out to some degree by the other 2 goals.

The Sunset Harbor BOD has one goal, to optimally manage Sunset Harbor in the best interests of the owners. The  BOD doesn't receive any benefit from escalating maintenance fees and if they don't do a good job, they can be voted out.

There are numerous successful independent boards out there and there is no reason to think that Hyatt/MVC is the only company that can properly manage this resort.

What HPP owners want is  irrelevant to Sunset Harbor owners and not necessarily in Sunset Harbor owner's best interest.

Sunset Harbor is sitting on a Gold Mine location in Key West and no one should worry that the resort will lose value if Hyatt/MVC is voted out.

I'm not saying everyone should vote yes. I think people need to vote for whatever decision is in their best interest, but there are some ridiculous statements being thrown about implying the BOD has some ulterior  motive in requesting this change when they have spelled out the reasons they are requesting the change.

I state again to all, don't put a lot of weight on opinions of people who just joined this forum in the last week.


----------



## AJCts411

I’d be for staying if HRC/Hyatt management/MVC guaranteed these changes in writing.  I could of emailed MVC this for use in their "workshop", but I guess it would just be buried.

Club Fees optional.   I use my weeks, never trade.  No benefit.

Cap the management fees charged to 10 per cent.  Remove reserve funding from being added to this fee. After all, as the HRC  recent letter to owners says, you are a huge company with the advange of  huge buying power, and there are two other HRC resorts in Key West…shouldn’t that all influence/ buying power transfer also to management fees?

Provide for ownership transfers between family members, for a nominal fee of $100.00.  ROFR waived for these transfers.  With a legal recorded deed submitted, allow family members, spouse to be added to the HYATT account for a nominal fee of $50.00.

Acknowledge week owner right to reserve both A & B sides of an owned lockout, removing the restriction forcing lock out owners to deposit one side of their owned lockout for points.

Direct HRC sales staff to stop using negative verbiage about week owners.  We are NOT the problem!  You can put all the spin you wish selling portfolio points, but do not disparage owners.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> I only post facts!  Believe them fine, choose not to believe them, fine as well.


Ah yes, ALTERNATIVE FACTS!  You can take that to the bank.  Blue sky facts. Sure you betcha.


----------



## Sapper

dioxide45 said:


> Isn't ROFR written into the underlying CC&R for most timeshare resorts. It isn't really part of the management agreement. So when a resort manager steps away, who becomes the beneficiary of the ROFR provision in the underlying condominium documents?



When Aspen was splitting, I mentioned this in the big thread. Depending how the original developer contract is written, ROFR is a developer right, not a management right. This means that Hyatt, as the developer, *could* ROFR units even if they are no longer the management company. They may or may not do this for a number of reasons. IF the developer contract allows for this, that would mean there is a scenario where Hyatt/MVC is voted out, ROFRs enough units to have control, votes in a board of MVC employees who then vote to go back under Hyatt management, put it to an owner vote, they are now the majority and win the vote.  It would be expensive for Hyatt/MVC, and would take a couple of years, but they could do it. A way the BoD *might* be able to block this would be to put something into place that states that no one entity can own more than X number of units.  HPP is a separate entity from Hyatt the developer, so it might prevent Hyatt from growing their ownership using HPP. Hyatt could still acquire the units through ROFR, but they could not do much with them until they had enough to win the vote. The carrying cost would be significant.


----------



## Sapper

AJCts411 said:


> I’d be for staying if HRC/Hyatt management/MVC guaranteed these changes in writing.  I could of emailed MVC this for use in their "workshop", but I guess it would just be buried.
> 
> Club Fees optional.   I use my weeks, never trade.  No benefit.
> 
> Cap the management fees charged to 10 per cent.  Remove reserve funding from being added to this fee. After all, as the HRC  recent letter to owners says, you are a huge company with the advange of  huge buying power, and there are two other HRC resorts in Key West…shouldn’t that all influence/ buying power transfer also to management fees?
> 
> Provide for ownership transfers between family members, for a nominal fee of $100.00.  ROFR waived for these transfers.  With a legal recorded deed submitted, allow family members, spouse to be added to the HYATT account for a nominal fee of $50.00.
> 
> Acknowledge week owner right to reserve both A & B sides of an owned lockout, removing the restriction forcing lock out owners to deposit one side of their owned lockout for points.
> 
> Direct HRC sales staff to stop using negative verbiage about week owners.  We are NOT the problem!  You can put all the spin you wish selling portfolio points, but do not disparage owners.



I shot an email to Stephanie Butera (COO) two nights ago echoing some of your points (one club fee, even for multiple owned unit/weeks and stop playing accounting games that only serve to increase MVC’s profit margin [no bid contracts, “operating reserves”, increased management fee percentage, etc…]). Announce these changes during their webinar on the 22nd or risk loosing Sunset. If Sunset leaves the Hyatt system, it will embolden other BoD to follow suit. Next up is Incline Village, then Park Hyatt, then Maui. What is better for the MVC shareholders: a strong system with reasonable profit margin (reduced from current) or a shattered system that is a fraction of what it once was. She has not responded. Although, after reading about the shakeup at MVC in another thread, she may be more interested in her next position than my email.


----------



## dioxide45

Sapper said:


> When Aspen was splitting, I mentioned this in the big thread. Depending how the original developer contract is written, ROFR is a developer right, not a management right. This means that Hyatt, as the developer, *could* ROFR units even if they are no longer the management company. They may or may not do this for a number of reasons. IF the developer contract allows for this, that would mean there is a scenario where Hyatt/MVC is voted out, ROFRs enough units to have control, votes in a board of MVC employees who then vote to go back under Hyatt management, put it to an owner vote, they are now the majority and win the vote.  It would be expensive for Hyatt/MVC, and would take a couple of years, but they could do it. A way the BoD *might* be able to block this would be to put something into place that states that no one entity can own more than X number of units.  HPP is a separate entity from Hyatt the developer, so it might prevent Hyatt from growing their ownership using HPP. Hyatt could still acquire the units through ROFR, but they could not do much with them until they had enough to win the vote. The carrying cost would be significant.


There would still be nothing preventing Hyatt (the developer) from acquiring the weeks via ROFR and then selling them again to HPP. That way, there is no carrying cost. Diamond was able to take over a lot of BOD years ago by buying up enough deeds at small independant properties to get voting control. Not sure if they carried those costs or had other ways to monetize what they bought.

As to ROFR though, without Hyatt (the management company) there to enforce it, the new management company and HOA would be willing to transfer weeks into the new owner's name without first making sure it went through ROFR. At a HRC managed resort, they can refuse to transfer a deed internally. Without that management function, they really have no way to enforce ROFR except through the courts.


----------



## AJCts411

Has anyone read the terms under which ROFR is granted and to whom? Is it in perpetuity?  Just asking.  Would you share your knowledge?  When I purchased my weeks, disclosed was the HRC had ROFR.  Everything I have read about ROFR (limited) was connected to HRC.  And then out there to our lawyer types, if in fact the developer has those rights can they be sold/transferred/conveyed?   I ask this because I will assume that the ROFR rights were established to protect poperty values, and now in fact it is being use to prop up a corporate business venture, portfolio.


----------



## GTLINZ

Sapper said:


> When Aspen was splitting, I mentioned this in the big thread. Depending how the original developer contract is written, ROFR is a developer right, not a management right.



If i remember reading correctly, the Aspen settlement included no more purchasing by Marriott via ROFR or otherwise in exchange for the HPP ownership being treated equitably.  Its all in the settlement.


----------



## INCHWORM

HenryT said:


> Hyatt/MVC has 3 goals:
> 
> Satisfy the stockholders/investors by increasing stock prices
> Selling new timeshares/programs (related to above)
> Satisfying current owners
> Somehow they have to balance the above 3 goals but no matter how they balance them, current owners are losing out to some degree by the other 2 goals.
> 
> The Sunset Harbor BOD has one goal, to optimally manage Sunset Harbor in the best interests of the owners. The  BOD doesn't receive any benefit from escalating maintenance fees and if they don't do a good job, they can be voted out.
> 
> There are numerous successful independent boards out there and there is no reason to think that Hyatt/MVC is the only company that can properly manage this resort.
> 
> What HPP owners want is  irrelevant to Sunset Harbor owners and not necessarily in Sunset Harbor owner's best interest.
> 
> Sunset Harbor is sitting on a Gold Mine location in Key West and no one should worry that the resort will lose value if Hyatt/MVC is voted out.
> 
> I'm not saying everyone should vote yes. I think people need to vote for whatever decision is in their best interest, but there are some ridiculous statements being thrown about implying the BOD has some ulterior  motive in requesting this change when they have spelled out the reasons they are requesting the change.
> 
> I state again to all, don't put a lot of weight on opinions of people who just joined this forum in the last week.


Seems irrelevant as to "when" I joined the discussion on this topic however,  FYI,  I  joined this discussion about a week ago.  This is the first time I have EVER joined a forum. I've never had anything that moved me to spend my valuable time with writing about my opinion NOR listening to other people's opinions.  I'm not much of a social media user either.  However,  I  was so very disturbed and disappointed by the BOD proposal and its ramifications in  this instance,  that I felt compelled to enlist one of my adult kids to help me find out what others were saying and to express my opinions and experiences which differ immensely from that of the BOD..(hence,  I was guided to this forum)
I would take offense to the idea that my opinion matters less, simply because I'm newer to forums. I'm an HRC owner at numerous properties (from one side of the country to the other) beginning a very,  very long time ago with a lot of experience frequently using my ownerships,  trading them sometimes and changing into WOH sometimes. I  would argue THAT'S WHAT makes  my opinion quite valuable... and that it's irrelevant that I joined the forum a week ago to express my strong opposition to the BOD opinion/email. People feel compelled to speak out when there's a topic that compells them to do so!


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> Here are some questions  that the SH board needs to answer. Was the decision to exit Hyatt/Marriott vote unanimous? We’re all board members in attendance or on the telephone for the meeting ? If the vote wasn’t unanimous and less than 5 board members voting was there a dissenting opinion? I would caution all owners that voting prior to having all the information could be danheroism.


I too would be interested in knif the decision was unanimous? And read the minutes of the meeting. 
If you find out any additional answers/information regarding answers,  please post it. Thats why one of my initial questions was why didn't the email come from the board president and should have been signed by every board member (who supported it)  given the serious significance and ramifications of this decision.  IMO.


----------



## Emerson

We have been trying to get a copy of the executive session board meeting for a week now and have been told that they are not yet available! Obviously the minutes will or should tell us the whole story. For whatever it is worth, it is our understanding that the meeting was held in Key West, that only 4 board members were in attendance and voted, and the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of the exit plan. It must have been an interesting meeting and some sort of organizational management team set up to manage Sunset Harbor in that Heisler‘s title went from SH board member to V. President in charge of Member Services. What does that team look like, who’s President? Who voted no? Which board member did not attend the meeting?
We also heard that earlier in that week, a board member resigned!!! Who was that? A lot of questions need to be answered by this board and a good start would be to release the meeting minutes. Our bet is they won’t be released until after July 14th.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> We have been trying to get a copy of the executive session board meeting for a week now and have been told that they are not yet available! Obviously the minutes will or should tell us the whole story. For whatever it is worth, it is our understanding that the meeting was held in Key West, that only 4 board members were in attendance and voted, and the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of the exit plan. It must have been an interesting meeting and some sort of organizational management team set up to manage Sunset Harbor in that Heisler‘s title went from SH board member to V. President in charge of Member Services. What does that team look like, who’s President? Who voted no? Which board member did not attend the meeting?
> We also heard that earlier in that week, a board member resigned!!! Who was that? A lot of questions need to be answered by this board and a good start would be to release the meeting minutes. Our bet is they won’t be released until after July 14th.


I believe as I  the case of all BOD executive meetings minutes ard confidential.  So nothing sinister or unusual here.  Seems at that meeting a logical decision was made to appoint one member to be contact for this vote.  Again logical to have one voice representing the  board...flowing I formation...nothing sinister here either.  Did someone resign...don't know and if there where maybe the hyatt employee did? Maybe the person did not have the time to commit any longer...besides your speculations...seems it's not public knowledge.  Support marriotts destruction of owner weeks if wn a week if you want your choice.  But stop with the cabal plot equations smearinvvghe BOD.


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> We have been trying to get a copy of the executive session board meeting for a week now and have been told that they are not yet available! Obviously the minutes will or should tell us the whole story. For whatever it is worth, it is our understanding that the meeting was held in Key West, that only 4 board members were in attendance and voted, and the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of the exit plan. It must have been an interesting meeting and some sort of organizational management team set up to manage Sunset Harbor in that Heisler‘s title went from SH board member to V. President in charge of Member Services. What does that team look like, who’s President? Who voted no? Which board member did not attend the meeting?
> We also heard that earlier in that week, a board member resigned!!! Who was that? A lot of questions need to be answered by this board and a good start would be to release the meeting minutes. Our bet is they won’t be released until after July 14th.


Thanks for update on whatever you know. I totally agree that the board LACKED ANY  TRANSPARENCY in this entire process.. which was initially obvious from their one-sized presentation in the email to (now) their apparent unwillingness to share the minutes with the owners.  I  was wondering when it was signed by Heisler (member services committee). I had never heard of this so-called member services committee!
Now your information is shedding some light upon this attempted BOD take-over.
  My suggestion at this point is that the BOD President should CANCEL THE VOTE to allow time for FULL DISCLOSURE by the BOD of EVERYTHING leading up to this exit proposal INCLUDING the minutes of the executive meeting.  They should then allow time for rebuttal by Hyatt whom apparently reported it was as blindsided by this as much as a large number of us owners were.
Hyatt is setting up that webinar to answer questions on June 22nd and I think the BOD should also set up a webinar to answer our questions and open this WHOLE THING up for comments,  concerns,  debate. 
CANCEL THE VOTE until further notice!!!
Once again I ask...what is/was the rush here? And frankly,  I am concerned that many people voted already WITHOUT being fully informed and without having both sides presented. (I'm sure that responses take a little time to prepare in the corporate world,  but I wish Hyatt had weighed in a lot sooner... I'm guessing quite a lot of people had already voted by the time they sent out a beginning of the rebuttal a few days later. )

I think the VOTE SHOULD BE CANCELED to allow time for all sides to present their positions to us owners and the BOD should offer FULL TRANSPARENCY as to the development of this proposal (which was radical, IMO).


----------



## Lingber

I have so many concerns about terminating Hyatt. This thread has been very helpful.


----------



## AJCts411

INCHWORM said:


> Thanks for update on whatever you know. I totally agree that the board LACKED ANY  TRANSPARENCY in this entire process.. which was initially obvious from their one-sized presentation in the email to (now) their apparent unwillingness to share the minutes with the owners.  I  was wondering when it was signed by Heisler (member services committee). I had never heard of this so-called member services committee!
> Now your information is shedding some light upon this attempted BOD take-over.
> My suggestion at this point is that the BOD President should CANCEL THE VOTE to allow time for FULL DISCLOSURE by the BOD of EVERYTHING leading up to this exit proposal INCLUDING the minutes of the executive meeting.  They should then allow time for rebuttal by Hyatt whom apparently reported it was as blindsided by this as much as a large number of us owners were.
> Hyatt is setting up that webinar to answer questions on June 22nd and I think the BOD should also set up a webinar to answer our questions and open this WHOLE THING up for comments,  concerns,  debate.
> CANCEL THE VOTE until further notice!!!
> Once again I ask...what is/was the rush here? And frankly,  I am concerned that many people voted already WITHOUT being fully informed and without having both sides presented. (I'm sure that responses take a little time to prepare in the corporate world,  but I wish Hyatt had weighed in a lot sooner... I'm guessing quite a lot of people had already voted by the time they sent out a beginning of the rebuttal a few days later. )
> 
> I think the VOTE SHOULD BE CANCELED to allow time for all sides to present their positions to us owners and the BOD should offer FULL TRANSPARENCY as to the development of this proposal (which was radical, IMO).


The B0D speaks as a single elected  voice.  This is their recommendation. A yes.  You can vote no.  Is the board stopping you from a no vote?  This topic has been brewing for some time.  Those owners who are a yes don't need more discussion discovery to see what's painted on the wall.  Marriot is only interested is to sell portfolio points. This is why they no longer sell weeks. It is a profit business that will improve shareholder value ...but at owners cost.  Wonder even on this forum the topic has been discussed...where were you?  Did you vote for BOD members?   Full transparency...you want to micro manage and milagn the decision of the BOD is more likely.  The BOD  did everything legally and responsibly.  Sorry you and Marriot disagree. One question when marriot or hyatt invented portfolio sold HRC...did they ask for your input?  How transparent is Marriot with the big changes coming...mostly at the expense of owners I will bet.


----------



## INCHWORM

AJCts411 said:


> The B0D speaks as a single elected  voice.  This is their recommendation. A yes.  You can vote no.  Is the board stopping you from a no vote?  This topic has been brewing for some time.  Those owners who are a yes don't need more discussion discovery to see what's painted on the wall.  Marriot is only interested is to sell portfolio points. This is why they no longer sell weeks. It is a profit business that will improve shareholder value ...but at owners cost.  Wonder even on this forum the topic has been discussed...where were you?  Did you vote for BOD members?   Full transparency...you want to micro manage and milagn the decision of the BOD is more likely.  The BOD  did everything legally and responsibly.  Sorry you and Marriot disagree. One question when marriot or hyatt invented portfolio sold HRC...did they ask for your input?  How transparent is Marriot with the big changes coming...mostly at the expense of owners I will bet.


1) I've voted in the BOD votes at each and every property where I own.
2) I've never heard of this topic until the BOD released their email and yes, I used my ownership at SH these recent past years.  
3) As previously mentioned,  I've never been on a forum before...never saw a need to spend my valuable time on this sort of stuff UNTIL the BOD raised my ire with this egregious proposal affecting the terms of how I would be able to use my timeshares at SH in the future.  I purchased SH and HRC as a combo with all the benefits thereof. Now the BOD is attempting to strip away a portion of that purchase that I find very beneficial!!!


----------



## INCHWORM

AJCts411 said:


> The B0D speaks as a single elected  voice.  This is their recommendation. A yes.  You can vote no.  Is the board stopping you from a no vote?  This topic has been brewing for some time.  Those owners who are a yes don't need more discussion discovery to see what's painted on the wall.  Marriot is only interested is to sell portfolio points. This is why they no longer sell weeks. It is a profit business that will improve shareholder value ...but at owners cost.  Wonder even on this forum the topic has been discussed...where were you?  Did you vote for BOD members?   Full transparency...you want to micro manage and milagn the decision of the BOD is more likely.  The BOD  did everything legally and responsibly.  Sorry you and Marriot disagree. One question when marriot or hyatt invented portfolio sold HRC...did they ask for your input?  How transparent is Marriot with the big changes coming...mostly at the expense of owners I will bet.


And one additional thought regarding your question of whether I cast my ballots for BOD elections...I don't recall any of the candidates' BIOs saying "vote for me because I'd like to divorce SH from Hyatt and HRC". I think I would have taken particular note of that! And micro manage? This is NOT a micro decision/proposal...this is as MAJOR as it gets considering I DID NOT and would not have bought into an independently run timeshare!


----------



## magicjourney

INCHWORM said:


> Thanks for update on whatever you know. I totally agree that the board LACKED ANY  TRANSPARENCY in this entire process.. which was initially obvious from their one-sized presentation in the email to (now) their apparent unwillingness to share the minutes with the owners.  I  was wondering when it was signed by Heisler (member services committee). I had never heard of this so-called member services committee!
> Now your information is shedding some light upon this attempted BOD take-over.
> My suggestion at this point is that the BOD President should CANCEL THE VOTE to allow time for FULL DISCLOSURE by the BOD of EVERYTHING leading up to this exit proposal INCLUDING the minutes of the executive meeting.  They should then allow time for rebuttal by Hyatt whom apparently reported it was as blindsided by this as much as a large number of us owners were.
> Hyatt is setting up that webinar to answer questions on June 22nd and I think the BOD should also set up a webinar to answer our questions and open this WHOLE THING up for comments,  concerns,  debate.
> CANCEL THE VOTE until further notice!!!
> Once again I ask...what is/was the rush here? And frankly,  I am concerned that many people voted already WITHOUT being fully informed and without having both sides presented. (I'm sure that responses take a little time to prepare in the corporate world,  but I wish Hyatt had weighed in a lot sooner... I'm guessing quite a lot of people had already voted by the time they sent out a beginning of the rebuttal a few days later. )
> 
> I think the VOTE SHOULD BE CANCELED to allow time for all sides to present their positions to us owners and the BOD should offer FULL TRANSPARENCY as to the development of this proposal (which was radical, IMO).



If there are any legal issues in the process, I am sure Hyatt will step up and use that as a weapon. Since Hyatt will perform due diligence, as a owner I simply focus on the facts: 
1. Are the facts in BOD email true? Answer: Yes
2. For years have Hyatt done anything to address the owner's concerns (multiple club dues, high MFs etc.)? Answer: No
Unless Hyatt make positive announcements in the June22nd meeting, my vote will be YES.


----------



## SteveinHNL

dioxide45 said:


> There would still be nothing preventing Hyatt (the developer) from acquiring the weeks via ROFR and then selling them again to HPP. That way, there is no carrying cost. Diamond was able to take over a lot of BOD years ago by buying up enough deeds at small independant properties to get voting control. Not sure if they carried those costs or had other ways to monetize what they bought.
> 
> As to ROFR though, without Hyatt (the management company) there to enforce it, the new management company and HOA would be willing to transfer weeks into the new owner's name without first making sure it went through ROFR. At a HRC managed resort, they can refuse to transfer a deed internally. Without that management function, they really have no way to enforce ROFR except through the courts.


They could file liens with the county recorder that would cloud title and basically render the new owners unable to sell.  If they did this a few times  then no one would buy without first getting the ROFR go-ahead from HRC


----------



## ivywag

INCHWORM said:


> Thanks for update on whatever you know. I totally agree that the board LACKED ANY  TRANSPARENCY in this entire process.. which was initially obvious from their one-sized presentation in the email to (now) their apparent unwillingness to share the minutes with the owners.  I  was wondering when it was signed by Heisler (member services committee). I had never heard of this so-called member services committee!
> Now your information is shedding some light upon this attempted BOD take-over.
> My suggestion at this point is that the BOD President should CANCEL THE VOTE to allow time for FULL DISCLOSURE by the BOD of EVERYTHING leading up to this exit proposal INCLUDING the minutes of the executive meeting.  They should then allow time for rebuttal by Hyatt whom apparently reported it was as blindsided by this as much as a large number of us owners were.
> Hyatt is setting up that webinar to answer questions on June 22nd and I think the BOD should also set up a webinar to answer our questions and open this WHOLE THING up for comments,  concerns,  debate.
> CANCEL THE VOTE until further notice!!!
> Once again I ask...what is/was the rush here? And frankly,  I am concerned that many people voted already WITHOUT being fully informed and without having both sides presented. (I'm sure that responses take a little time to prepare in the corporate world,  but I wish Hyatt had weighed in a lot sooner... I'm guessing quite a lot of people had already voted by the time they sent out a beginning of the rebuttal a few days later. )
> 
> I think the VOTE SHOULD BE CANCELED to allow time for all sides to present their positions to us owners and the BOD should offer FULL TRANSPARENCY as to the development of this proposal (which was radical, IMO).


Do you own at Sunset Harbor?  As I said before, any BOD can have a vote to change management companies and Hyatt/Marriott surely hasn’t done any favors for the HRC.


----------



## ivywag

ivywag said:


> Do you own at Sunset Harbor?  As I said before, any BOD can have a vote to change management companies and Hyatt/Marriott surely hasn’t done any favors for the HRC.


Where was the vote when Hyatt created the HPP and instituted the Club to Club Exchange Agreement without Informing any HRC owners?  Hyatt/Marriott didn’t even tell us that it was coming. Everything was a secret—-except, of course, on TUG!


----------



## INCHWORM

ivywag said:


> Do you own at Sunset Harbor?  As I said before, any BOD can have a vote to change management companies and Hyatt/Marriott surely hasn’t done any favors for the HRC.


Yes...as stated before,  I  AM an owner at SH among many other HRC properties where I am an owner


----------



## dioxide45

INCHWORM said:


> Yes...as stated before,  I  AM an owner at SH among many other HRC properties where I am an owner


Hey wait, you are the HPP  Doesn't it own many other HRC properties???


----------



## amycurl

> One would think if it works, someone somewhere would have already tried the business model.



Harbor Ridge in Maine was sold this way. We had to talk our way into a tour, because they were *only* selling to locals, and offering *no* incentives to tour.

I think @ScoopLV's model would *absolutely* work in a place like Asheville, esp. if the resort was small and well-located.

At my most recent, and one of my most awkward, sales presentation at Hilton at Parc Soleil this weekend, the saleswomen kept asking us why we came, if we knew we weren't going to buy, and saw us as the problem. I said, "Look, I'm not the one who created this business model. Yet, here we are." If you want to give me three nights at a nice resort for less than $100/night, then, yes, I'm going to take it. Because that's in *my* economic self-interest.


----------



## dioxide45

amycurl said:


> Harbor Ridge in Maine was sold this way. We had to talk our way into a tour, because they were *only* selling to locals, and offering *no* incentives to tour.
> 
> I think @ScoopLV's model would *absolutely* work in a place like Asheville, esp. if the resort was small and well-located.
> 
> At my most recent, and one of my most awkward, sales presentation at Hilton at Parc Soleil this weekend, the saleswomen kept asking us why we came, if we knew we weren't going to buy, and saw us as the problem. I said, "Look, I'm not the one who created this business model. Yet, here we are." If you want to give me three nights at a nice resort for less than $100/night, then, yes, I'm going to take it. Because that's in *my* economic self-interest.


But I think the model only works in those few select locations (Disney being one of them). For some locations they simply wouldn't have the margins to be profitable enough to attract the bigger developers. Thus why you sometimes only have small independents in the interiors of the country. The current model has been going since almost the beginning of timeshare. If there was a better method, surely someone would have found a way to make it work and be profitable?


----------



## ScoopKona

INCHWORM said:


> Yes...as stated before,  I  AM an owner at SH among many other HRC properties where I am an owner



And yet you have never written about anything involving HRC. Just this one issue exclusively. I'm not going to believe a word you say unless you stick around after the vote and continue to talk about HRC and not just Sunset Harbor booting their management company.

Until then, I don't believe a word that you write -- and I still wouldn't even if every post you write was notarized.


----------



## ScoopKona

amycurl said:


> Harbor Ridge in Maine was sold this way. We had to talk our way into a tour, because they were *only* selling to locals, and offering *no* incentives to tour.



So there is hope for change. Timeshare _can_ work. And it can work well. But it needs to be in the right places and the program must work. And then no salespeople are needed. This HPP silliness is just a way for MVC to sell the same development a second time. It's a cynical, callous way to treat the owners. If they want to make more money, they should develop more resorts. 

Put someone who knows timeshares (instead of venture capitalism) in charge of selecting locations and setting up the sales model. Giving away mini-vacations is ridiculous. They should charge full price and then show them how much less it would be if guests simply bought instead. Giving away prizes to people on vacation only scares away the intelligent -- the people who realize that if they buy, they're paying for the cost of all those prizes.


----------



## INCHWORM

dioxide45 said:


> Hey wait, you are the HPP  Doesn't it own many other HRC properties???


Seriously? (I think comments should be more constructive than this kind of BS questions,  but here goes...as also stated previously I own deeded weeks/deeded units that I personally own for my personal use because I like to travel and do so frequently (timeshare ownership weeks,  WOH points,  timeshare trades and just booking and paying for high quality hotels).
Enough said...no more BS questions


----------



## dioxide45

INCHWORM said:


> Seriously? (I think comments should be more constructive than this kind of BS questions,  but here goes...as also stated previously I own deeded weeks/deeded units that I personally own for my personal use because I like to travel and do so frequently (timeshare ownership weeks,  WOH points,  timeshare trades and just booking and paying for high quality hotels).
> Enough said...no more BS questions


My comment was a joke based off many of the accusations thrown around here...


----------



## INCHWORM

ScoopLV said:


> And yet you have never written about anything involving HRC. Just this one issue exclusively. I'm not going to believe a word you say unless you stick around after the vote and continue to talk about HRC and not just Sunset Harbor booting their management company.
> 
> Until then, I don't believe a word that you write -- and I still wouldn't even if every post you write was notarized.


And I  will indeed stop posting after the vote, because there will be nothing further to discuss from my perspective that even interests me.  I'm a happy HRC  owner, user, and trader so I'm hoping it will be overwhelmingly NO to this proposed divorce.  If not,  then I'll have to decide when I use and when I rent out my SH ownerships.ill still be a happy owner of my other HRC properties and a disgruntled SH owner if the BOD proposal goes through.


----------



## INCHWORM

dioxide45 said:


> My comment was a joke based off many of the accusations thrown around here...


Sorry...didn't realize you were joking... because I've been accused of being a corporate shill, a Hyatt insider and every other thing in the book simply because I'm an enthusiastic HRC owner who's used my properties to maximum personal benefit.


----------



## echino

INCHWORM said:


> Sorry...didn't realize you were joking... because I've been accused of being a corporate shill, a Hyatt insider and every other thing in the book simply because I'm an enthusiastic HRC owner who's used my properties to maximum personal benefit.



You are being accused of being a shill because you sound like a shill.


----------



## ScoopKona

INCHWORM said:


> Sorry...didn't realize you were joking... because I've been accused of being a corporate shill, a Hyatt insider and every other thing in the book simply because I'm an enthusiastic HRC owner who's used my properties to maximum personal benefit.



If all your posts didn't sound like you were reading from a cue card, people would be more apt to believe you. 

Frankly, for someone who claims to be "an enthusiastic HRC owner" you sure don't sound like one. There are plenty of enthusiastic Hyatt owners here. I may or may not agree with them. But I wouldn't accuse them of having financial skin in the game because they aren't corporate parrots.

Your posts read like that of a timeshare salesperson who doesn't know how to write in any other way.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> I believe as I  the case of all BOD executive meetings minutes ard confidential.  So nothing sinister or unusual here.  Seems at that meeting a logical decision was made to appoint one member to be contact for this vote.  Again logical to have one voice representing the  board...flowing I formation...nothing sinister here either.  Did someone resign...don't know and if there where maybe the hyatt employee did? Maybe the person did not have the time to commit any longer...besides your speculations...seems it's not public knowledge.  Support marriotts destruction of owner weeks if wn a week if you want your choice.  But stop with the cabal plot equations smearinvvghe BOD.


Your wrong! Any votes taken by the board have to be put in the meeting minutes and made public. Florida law. The person that resigned was a board member. Again minutes would reveal that. Also the minutes will reveal who voted for and against. Seems you are the one speculating, “ maybe it was a Hyatt employee or maybe the person did not have the time”?. My posts are not an effort to support Hyatt but to find out what really happened!


----------



## jabberwocky

INCHWORM said:


> Thanks for update on whatever you know. I totally agree that the board LACKED ANY  TRANSPARENCY in this entire process.. which was initially obvious from their one-sized presentation in the email to (now) their apparent unwillingness to share the minutes with the owners.  I  was wondering when it was signed by Heisler (member services committee). I had never heard of this so-called member services committee!
> Now your information is shedding some light upon this attempted BOD take-over.
> My suggestion at this point is that the BOD President should CANCEL THE VOTE to allow time for FULL DISCLOSURE by the BOD of EVERYTHING leading up to this exit proposal INCLUDING the minutes of the executive meeting.  They should then allow time for rebuttal by Hyatt whom apparently reported it was as blindsided by this as much as a large number of us owners were.
> Hyatt is setting up that webinar to answer questions on June 22nd and I think the BOD should also set up a webinar to answer our questions and open this WHOLE THING up for comments,  concerns,  debate.
> CANCEL THE VOTE until further notice!!!
> Once again I ask...what is/was the rush here? And frankly,  I am concerned that many people voted already WITHOUT being fully informed and without having both sides presented. (I'm sure that responses take a little time to prepare in the corporate world,  but I wish Hyatt had weighed in a lot sooner... I'm guessing quite a lot of people had already voted by the time they sent out a beginning of the rebuttal a few days later. )
> 
> I think the VOTE SHOULD BE CANCELED to allow time for all sides to present their positions to us owners and the BOD should offer FULL TRANSPARENCY as to the development of this proposal (which was radical, IMO).


I suspect there are quite a few here who have expertise in how boards are run and the issues/rules surrounding them.  Based on your statements such as this I would say you are not in this group of people.

Please stop posting baseless allegations against the HSH board. I get it that you don’t like the potential of having your units outside of the Hyatt system. I think most people who are considering voting yes also like the Hyatt system, but the cost concerns are becoming overwhelming to the point where they see little to no benefit.


----------



## ScoopKona

Emerson said:


> Your wrong! Any votes taken by the board have to be put in the meeting minutes and made public. Florida law. The person that resigned was a board member. Again minutes would reveal that. Also the minutes will reveal who voted for and against. Seems you are the one speculating, “ maybe it was a Hyatt employee or maybe the person did not have the time”?. My posts are not an effort to support Hyatt but to find out what really happened!



In this one post, we have 

1) The Burden of Proof logical fallacy

2) Argument from Repetition

3) False Dilemma

4) The Middle Ground fallacy

5) Incomplete comparison.

6) Personal incredulity


That's gotta be a new record. Well done!


----------



## geist1223

Emerson said:


> We have been trying to get a copy of the executive session board meeting for a week now and have been told that they are not yet available! Obviously the minutes will or should tell us the whole story. For whatever it is worth, it is our understanding that the meeting was held in Key West, that only 4 board members were in attendance and voted, and the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of the exit plan. It must have been an interesting meeting and some sort of organizational management team set up to manage Sunset Harbor in that Heisler‘s title went from SH board member to V. President in charge of Member Services. What does that team look like, who’s President? Who voted no? Which board member did not attend the meeting?
> We also heard that earlier in that week, a board member resigned!!! Who was that? A lot of questions need to be answered by this board and a good start would be to release the meeting minutes. Our bet is they won’t be released until after July 14th.




I think you will disappointed in the Minutes. They are not Verbatim.


----------



## dioxide45

If there was indeed an executive meeting, the information discussed doesn't need to be provided to the entire ownership. Executive meetings are often for situations like this or to discuss potentially sensitive matters related to litigation. The fact that an executive meeting took place should be disclosed at a regular board meeting and recorded in the minutes of such. The subject of the meeting should be disclosed such as "Executive meeting to discuss vote to terminate management agreement was held on..."


----------



## Kal

The shills are speaking from Cue Cards written by MVC/Hyatt.  It's a waste of time to even engage them.


----------



## INCHWORM

ScoopLV said:


> So there is hope for change. Timeshare _can_ work. And it can work well. But it needs to be in the right places and the program must work. And then no salespeople are needed. This HPP silliness is just a way for MVC to sell the same development a second time. It's a cynical, callous way to treat the owners. If they want to make more money, they should develop more resorts.
> 
> Put someone who knows timeshares (instead of venture capitalism) in charge of selecting locations and setting up the sales model. Giving away mini-vacations is ridiculous. They should charge full price and then show them how much less it would be if guests simply bought instead. Giving away prizes to people on vacation only scares away the intelligent -- the people who realize that if they buy, they're paying for the cost of all those prizes.


Well, I  see we actually partially agree on something...(amazing)  I've never liked Marriott’s point system which is why I purchased Hyatt deeded weeks/deeded units! I like my personally chosen weeks and my personally chosen views from my units. I  was disappointed when Marriott bought HRC and I worried about that but was happy I didn't personally notice any significant changes in my personal usage for my vacation purposes.  When HPP came along I was admittedly disappointed and found it somewhat annoying that there was HPP properties available for trade and HRC properties available for trade. I  DO trade sometimes to get additional units when family travels along,  OR because I need to switch weeks,  OR I  am just too busy to use some weeks and trade for WOH points and enjoy a luxurious 5* hotels in magnificent locals.
I somewhat disagree with you regarding the reasoning behind these nebulous "points" sales.  I always believed (and still do) that Marriott uses points to mask the fact that they're also selling ski resort weeks in mud season and Florida resorts in the summer etc etc. By selling it all as nebulous points and adding other things like cruises and vacation packages etc they can sell ALL their inventory- even the stuff that Noone wants because it's lumped into points. That's why I  said NO to Marriott points purchases when it was marketed to me. The HPP owners are actually paying a higher MF than many of the properties including SH so if I can't use my SH ownership at any given time,  I  really do not have a problem with HRC allowing HPP owners a chance at that inventory I just freed up.


----------



## ScoopKona

INCHWORM said:


> to mask the fact that they're also selling ski resort weeks in mud season and Florida resorts in the summer



This is the first post you have written which doesn't sound like you were handed a script. If you keep it up, people might come around to thinking you don't work in Tampa for MVC.

The reason the Hyatt point system works where others fail is that point levels are assigned to both ski weeks and mud weeks. A mudder isn't going to trade up. But a skier can trade down (if he or she wants to). So long as HPP buys HRC weeks and doesn't add phantom points to the system, the system will continue for HRC owners as is. My only real fear is that they start selling more points than they have units to back it up. If so, I'm out. I'll quitclaim or sell my week and walk away.

As I have said before, if the vote turns out "yes/yes," there will be HBH and HWP owners champing at the bit to trade deeds with HSH owners who bought HSH to trade it. There are only a handful of such owners. And we are squarely in "the needs of the many" territory with this vote.


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> Your wrong! Any votes taken by the board have to be put in the meeting minutes and made public. Florida law. The person that resigned was a board member. Again minutes would reveal that. Also the minutes will reveal who voted for and against. Seems you are the one speculating, “ maybe it was a Hyatt employee or maybe the person did not have the time”?. My posts are not an effort to support Hyatt but to find out what really happened!


I totally support and appreciate your efforts to find out the details. Please post anything you find out


----------



## bluemax

Pathways said:


> The BOD has been trying to work with Hyatt about their concerns for YEARS.  They have the history of the exact number of owners who don't utilize their owned week. It is a very small %.  Don't want to quote the number as I don't remember exact, but it is so small I really pushed back on the accuracy.  They pulled out a sheet with all the history and rattled of the numbers.  I was very surprised.
> 
> The BOD has been all about the owner - It is a unique location, with two 'competing' timeshares within a couple of blocks.  The others have kept their MF's very stable while SH has climbed like crazy. The Galleon is the real comparison. Their fees are now around 1200, and the sales prices of a week there have gone through the roof.
> 
> Hyatt charges 157.00 for club dues.  That is PER WEEK.  No discount for multiple weeks.  For most HSH owners, that is 157 bucks right off the top that give them nothing in return as they use their week every year.  PER WEEK.  Can you imagine HGVC charging an annual club fee on EVERY week instead of a set price for all?  For those of us that own multiple HRC weeks, it it a huge outlay for nothing at all in return.  Even MVC with the new Vistana merger is only charging a single annual fee for your entire ownership, and then halting all the other mickey mouse fees.
> 
> That is one of the biggest complaints - An owner who stays six weeks every winter will pay $942 to Hyatt for nothing. (Remember the management fee is a separate item)  I really thought with the fee setup for all the other Marriott branded timeshares having the lower fees, Hyatt (really Marriott) would agree to change their fee structure with HRC to match.  Just that change alone might have staved off this entire push.
> 
> For a long time, the argument has been 'why are our fees so much higher that BH and WP'?  Hyatt fixed that - BH and WP raised their fees to where they are getting close to SH.
> 
> Bottom line on trades: Let each owner add their week to whichever exchange company they want.  For each week at SH they will get more than 1 for exchange value.


Had no idea owners could opt out of Hyatt - are there any exceptions or protected properties?


----------



## INCHWORM

ScoopLV said:


> This is the first post you have written which doesn't sound like you were handed a script. If you keep it up, people might come around to thinking you don't work in Tampa for MVC.
> 
> The reason the Hyatt point system works where others fail is that point levels are assigned to both ski weeks and mud weeks. A mudder isn't going to trade up. But a skier can trade down (if he or she wants to). So long as HPP buys HRC weeks and doesn't add phantom points to the system, the system will continue for HRC owners as is. My only real fear is that they start selling more points than they have units to back it up. If so, I'm out. I'll quitclaim or sell my week and walk away.
> 
> As I have said before, if the vote turns out "yes/yes," there will be HBH and HWP owners champing at the bit to trade deeds with HSH owners who bought HSH to trade it. There are only a handful of such owners. And we are squarely in "the needs of the many" territory with this vote.


For years I was marketed to by Marriott and when I questioned exactly how many of these points they could sell (implying "oversell") I was informed that by law they absolutely cannot sell more inventory via points) than they actually have units for. I would certainly believe that the same laws and circumstances apply to HPP.  I've always suspected that Marriott started adding these "adventures" or whatever they're called (ex; cruises and tours etc) so they could either 1) claim more inventory to sell points for OR  2) satisfy their elite members with alternate options thereby freeing up some inventory. 

All of this is why I've never liked Marriott’s point system and.why I've been extremely satisfied with with HRC for ALL my units. Do I wish Marriott had never purchased Hyatt...absolutely.  Do I  wish Hyatt had acquired Starwood...yes (because I like some of the Westin and St Regis properties I've stayed at) Have I personally noticed any interruption to my personal satisfaction with HRC properties...no
Call me whatever untrue,  disparaging names you want...question my motives here.  The truth is I'm happy and get maximum benefit from my HRC ownership. PERIOD


----------



## Bunk

I have a question about the imposition of the point system.  Did the developer (e.g., Marriott Vacation Club or the Hyatt equivalent) ever obtain the approval of any of the Board of Directors to restructure the time share plan from being weeks based to points based?


----------



## INCHWORM

One other consideration for those who post percentages regarding owner occupancy.  These numbers are (IMO) misleading in that you reserve your unit whether YOU are using it ...or whether you are RENTING it. Time after time sitting around the SH pool, I've heard people (owners) saying they're staying multiple weeks because they rented from other owners.  Now some might suggest that is still owner usage,  but I believe it falsifies the stats IMO. Those owners who booked, then rented it out,  probably wanted the $ instead of trading and traveling elsewhere,  but in the future,  perhaps they OR their kids who inherit the timeshares might wish to have options.  I know my kids like going to all my different locations and wouldn't want to be harnessed to any single one


----------



## dioxide45

Bunk said:


> I have a question about the imposition of the point system.  Did the developer (e.g., Marriott Vacation Club or the Hyatt equivalent) ever obtain the approval of any of the Board of Directors to restructure the time share plan from being weeks based to points based?


As far as the resort is concerned, it is still a weeks based system. None of the underlying documents changed. The management company just has a different reservation system to allow for less than 7 night reservations. I don't expect that the board or owners had to vote on such a change. Early on when Marriott implemented their DC program, the boards did vote on updated reservation procedures. But those didn't seem to specifically allow for point based reservations.


----------



## AJCts411

Points portfolio pay more maintenance fees...to whom? Marriot and for thier profit.  Who thinks Marriott pays more maintenance fees to sunset than any other owner...


----------



## Kal

Reservations are handled on an owner account basis where the currency is points.  If someone buys 2200 portfolio points they pay $2200 M/F.  A HSH owner pays $1800 M/F.  There is no cash basis for booking HSH, you just have to deduct the required amount of points from your account.


----------



## dioxide45

AJCts411 said:


> Points portfolio pay more maintenance fees...to whom? Marriot and for thier profit.  Who thinks Marriott pays more maintenance fees to sunset than any other owner...


Generally the fees are higher on trust points because the trust has administrative costs. These trusts also tend to hold more lower season weeks that have the same maintenance fees as the high season but fewer points. So the cost per point is higher.


----------



## bizaro86

dioxide45 said:


> As far as the resort is concerned, it is still a weeks based system. None of the underlying documents changed. The management company just has a different reservation system to allow for less than 7 night reservations. I don't expect that the board or owners had to vote on such a change. Early on when Marriott implemented their DC program, the boards did vote on updated reservation procedures. But those didn't seem to specifically allow for point based reservations.



Any system that decreases the average length of stay increases costs because more housekeeping is required.


----------



## dioxide45

Thinking about exchange company affiliation again. I see that Grand Aspen is still in the II directory, but of course inventory could come through from HPP deposits. What do those weeks based Aspen Mountain Residences (new name for Hyatt Grand Aspen) do for exchanging? Are they affiliated with II. I don't see that listed as a separate resort nor in the RCI resort directory either.


----------



## KWBill

chrisbellows said:


> Well said — I agree 100%


I agree. We use our Sunset Harbor every year and love the quality. Plus Hyatt staff is informed and responsive. We have not


chrisbellows said:


> For me, this is a horrible proposal and I lost sleep over it last night.   I own multiple weeks at Sunset Harbor, Windward, and Beach House.   I have benefitted greatly from being able to use my points at Hyatt properties.   I sometimes use my Sunset points for Beach House and Windward --- those are excellent resorts that offer an exceptional experience.   I have also looked forward to using my Sunset points for Hyatt properties outside of Florida.    I would lose a lot if Sunset opts out of Hyatt.   There are too many unknowns.   One might think they would never stay anywhere except Sunset Harbor, but life changes, kids or grandkids come into your life, and suddenly Beach House looks more attractive or Sedona or Colorado.    I do think we need a lot more information before voting on something as consequential as this.    We are all different and have different ways of looking at things.  But we all should know that a rush to judgment usually turns out bad.   And if anyone lives in a condo, you should know how dangerous it is to leave life-changing decisions to an HOA Board.


I agree and want to add that Windward and the Beach House are lovely resorts but not in the ideal, walkable area that Sunset Harbor is. Keep this a Hyatt property. Right, HIA boards can quickly torpedo a property if they have complete control. A few dollars for a top of the line experience is worth it. We want to keep Hyatt and the benefits they provide.


----------



## KWBill

Digdot said:


> Correct: vote no


If it makes sense, give us the full plan. Vote no unless a new management company has been found and can detail the benefits and costs of making a change.


----------



## ScoopKona

MVC must be quaking in their boots. I wonder how many more new accounts will be created in the next couple weeks?


----------



## zebraski

I can't believe it... just this past Monday, 6/6 they tried to get us to buy 500 points for $10K to get us in the trading pool and "hyattize" our owned week.  We're not that stupid...we just went for the $200 in gift certificates.  But what would have happened if we had done that? Another question...how many unit weeks does Hyatt own at Sunset Harbor.  They claim to be buying them all up. Are there enough of us owners left to get this passed?  I'm definitely for it.  Our sales gal even went so far as to say that if we didn't do it and the building was destroyed somehow we would be liable...actual words!!!
If you're a Board Member and need help contacting owners to tell them the truth...I'm in.


----------



## KWBill

Digdot said:


> Perfect! No rush needed on an important decision.  It’s no.


True. Big risk of conflict of interest and no real plan beyond leaving a system that works. Also, Hyatt negotiated parking. Saving several hundred only to have to pay $30 plus per day to park equals 0 cost benefit to


----------



## DeniseM

I can assure you that what the salesperson told you was not within a mile of the truth.  *They lie for a living.*


----------



## travelhacker

I believe I saw that there are subsidies to parking baked into the maintenance fees. Does anyone have last years bill? I’d be curious how much that adds to expenses.

I get both sides of the argument on this issue. I think HRC is trying to squeeze owners too much in respect to gradually raising management fees to 15%, but for me personally the value in being a system outweighs the expense (for now).


----------



## dioxide45

travelhacker said:


> but for me personally the value in being a system outweighs the expense (for now).


That is really what it comes down to and what people need to vote for. There is no doubt there will be savings from splitting off from HRC, but there will be some drawback, less flexibility in the event you don't want to stay at HSH and perhaps a gradual degradation to the quality of the property and rooms over time. Is the higher cost worth the benefits the Hyatt name provides? If so, vote No. If the cost savings outweigh these benefits, then vote Yes.


----------



## ScoopKona

DeniseM said:


> I can assure you that what the salesperson told you was not within a mile of the truth.  *They lie for a living.*



_Ahem. _

I was able to sell a slew of weeks without even bending the truth. It was the easiest job I ever had.


----------



## DeniseM

ScoopLV - That is admirable - but did you see the claims in the above post?


----------



## Emerson

Without a clear management plan by the SH board that all owners can understand along with the estimated management fees, how can any owner vote yes. I don’t know any owner that likes their management fees and most all feel that they are too much but at least owners know what they are. Again, there’s too many unanswered questions with respect to this entire proposed break away.


----------



## ScoopKona

DeniseM said:


> ScoopLV - That is admirable - but did you see the claims in the above post?



Sure. It's hogwash. Back in the day, that person would be fired.

When I worked there, we were "mystery shopped" all the time by Hyatt employees. We could assume one per month. Lies were dealt with. Our broker listened in on all the presentations going on. And if he heard something he didn't like, he would walk over and shut the bad information down right there. Nobody was ever fired on the spot. But there were some terminations. But usually it's because Hyatt is a complex system and the salesperson got something wrong.

But pitching investment? Pitching the ability to get everything on the planet? Pitching resale value? All of that was forbidden. We were told to sell it as a big, expensive toy.

My entire presentation only took 60 minutes. So I spent 30 minutes telling people what to do in Key West. Roughly one in five bought. Granted, I didn't mention resale weeks. (That was also forbidden.) But there weren't a whole lot of those because it was a new resort. And I knew it was a good travel value, even with the mark-up. I bought a week from myself, after all. Selling Hyatt became _very_ easy after I did.


----------



## Emerson

Just received an email that tomorrow we will get the details on the executive session board meeting. Who was in attendance, who was not, who voted and how they voted, the board member that resigned and more!


----------



## Lingber

Emerson said:


> Just received an email that tomorrow we will get the details on the executive session board meeting. Who was in attendance, who was not, who voted and how they voted, the board member that resigned and more!


Please share when you receive. Thank you.


----------



## Lingber

dioxide45 said:


> That is really what it comes down to and what people need to vote for. There is no doubt there will be savings from splitting off from HRC, but there will be some drawback, less flexibility in the event you don't want to stay at HSH and perhaps a gradual degradation to the quality of the property and rooms over time. Is the higher cost worth the benefits the Hyatt name provides? If so, vote No. If the cost savings outweigh these benefits, then vote Yes.



Exactly my thoughts. Quality of the property is very important to me personally and has always been worth paying more to have. That is why we bought Hyatt. I did a huge amount of research before our first Hyatt resale. Followed Kal's advice. Buy resale at a location you want to use. But we also like the flexibility of exchaning to other luxury properties. Without more info on what that looks like moving forward and with concerns about what the future quality standards look like without the influence of MVC/Hyatt there is too much unknown.


----------



## AJCts411

KWBill said:


> True. Big risk of conflict of interest and no real plan beyond leaving a system that works. Also, Hyatt negotiated parking. Saving several hundred only to have to pay $30 plus per day to park equals 0 cost benefit to


Risk of... conflict of interest.   Really best mvc shills have?  BOD  elected and have a conflict of interest.  They represent us week owners. Next misinformation the parking no where near true. Sunset harbor pays in our maintenance fees for parking benefits.  The arrangement is part of the building permit.  The shills only line presented this far...BOD is a cabal plotting against you owners. Mean while marriot promises nothing,  and by thier actions are only interested in reselling you what you already own.  That spells the end of HRC.


----------



## Kal

KWBill said:


> True. Big risk of conflict of interest and no real plan beyond leaving a system that works. Also, Hyatt negotiated parking. Saving several hundred only to have to pay $30 plus per day to park equals 0 cost benefit to


Check your facts.  You clearly don't know what you're talking about.  Was that on the shill talking points provided to you by BVC? Parking spots provided to Sunset Harbor are a garage building permit condition.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Just received an email that tomorrow we will get the details on the executive session board meeting. Who was in attendance, who was not, who voted and how they voted, the board member that resigned and more!


Hey emerson, why did MVC provide you with the wrong profile name/spelling of the Hyatt resorts you "own"?  Oops.


----------



## Kal

amycurl said:


> @ScoopKona, you changed your username and I got all confused there for a minute. I mean, I understand why you changed it, but give us a head's up or something, LOL!


Careful!  He is in the Witness Protection Program.  Hyatt/MVC is trying to take him out.  The last thing they can tolerate is a "truth teller".


----------



## AJCts411

Please correct this  chain of HRC brand ownership.  Hyatt the "luxury"  hotel chain...sells HRC to ILG aka interval intetnaional...who is bought/ sold to Marriot.


----------



## Sapper

AJCts411 said:


> Please correct this  chain of HRC brand ownership.  Hyatt the "luxury"  hotel chain...sells HRC to ILG aka interval intetnaional...who is bought/ sold to Marriot.


Looks correct, just clarify that “Marriott” as used here is referring to MVC, NOT Marriott Hotels.


----------



## AJCts411

Sapper said:


> Looks correct, just clarify that “Marriott” as used here is referring to MVC, NOT Marriott Hotels.


Is it correct that at sunset harbor the hyatt management corporation (may not be the exact name) is owned by MVC? 

Looking at the ownership chain...my opinion...Hyatt sees HRC before portfolio...profitability in a sunset stage.   Enter portfolio and ILG.   MVC sees a value added opportunity in buying ILG which  owns HRC brand.  Portfolio points fits very well with MVC points strategy. Suppressing owner week values, exercising ROFR  fits that strategy.  As I've posted...seems without change owners are in danger, writing is 9n the wall.  Yes I don't say anything about the lofty MVC "exciting changes coming" marketing...most certainly at owners expense.  There is zero profit in this.


----------



## VacationForever

AJCts411 said:


> Is it correct that at sunset harbor the hyatt management corporation (may not be the exact name) is owned by MVC?
> 
> Looking at the ownership chain...my opinion...Hyatt sees HRC before portfolio...profitability in a sunset stage.   Enter portfolio and ILG.   MVC sees a value added opportunity in buying ILG which  owns HRC brand.  Portfolio points fits very well with MVC points strategy. Suppressing owner week values, exercising ROFR  fits that strategy.  As I've posted...seems without change owners are in danger, writing is 9n the wall.  Yes I don't say anything about the lofty MVC "exciting changes coming" marketing...most certainly at owners expense.  There is zero profit in this.


MVW bought ILG for Vistana and II, Hyatt simply came with it.


----------



## dioxide45

AJCts411 said:


> Is it correct that at sunset harbor the hyatt management corporation (may not be the exact name) is owned by MVC?


Hyatt Hotels Corporation spins off Hyatt Residesidence Group as a separate company but at the same time they sell it to Interval Leisure Group (2014). ILG just happens to also own Interval International and several other Companies (TPI, VRI Americas, VRI Europe, Aston-Aqua). ILG later buys Vistana Signature Experiences from Starwood Hotels (2016). Then later still, ILG is acquired by Marriott Vacations Worldwide (2018). MVW owns Marriott Vacation Club. There is a lot of legal structure behind the scenes, but don't think of Marriott Vacation Club (MVC) owning anything. They don't. MVW owns all these companies, one of which is ILG which still encompases HRC.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> Hey emerson, why did MVC provide you with the wrong profile name/spelling of the Hyatt resorts you "own"?  Oops.


MVC provided me with nothing! Why do you care? If you don’t want to know what really is going on, please don’t read my posts! There are a lot of people that want to know.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> MVC provided me with nothing! Why do you care? If you don’t want to know what really is going on, please don’t read my posts! There are a lot of people that want to know.


Yes tell us what's going on? A cabal rogue BOD...with elected members conspiring to do what? All you have provided are easily arguable and mere disparaging questions impuning  our elected BOD.
Tell us two points why you want to remain a Sunset harbor week owner with MVC?


----------



## ScoopKona

Emerson said:


> MVC provided me with nothing! Why do you care? If you don’t want to know what really is going on, please don’t read my posts! There are a lot of people that want to know.



And, let's say that the vote is Yes/Yes. And for some bizarro-world reason you don't want your property values to go up and your annual fees to go way down. And you are one of the handful of owners who actually wants to trade in HRC.

Beach House and Windward owners are going to trip over each other begging to trade deeds with you. They'd trade two weeks for your one. I'd make that trade, and I'm a happy Hyatt owner. SH already trades like an absolute monster. And it's going to become even more exclusive if the vote is Yes/Yes. SH owners have the nicest piece of real estate in the entire city. Everyone wants that. There are people who would love to move there for eight months of the year.


----------



## Kal

AJCts411 said:


> Yes tell us what's going on? A cabal rogue BOD...with elected members conspiring to do what? All you have provided are easily arguable and mere disparaging questions impuning  our elected BOD.
> Tell us two points why you want to remain a Sunset harbor week owner with MVC?


Does he really own at HSH??


----------



## SteveinHNL

ScoopKona said:


> And, let's say that the vote is Yes/Yes. And for some bizarro-world reason you don't want your property values to go up and your annual fees to go way down. And you are one of the handful of owners who actually wants to trade in HRC.
> 
> Beach House and Windward owners are going to trip over each other begging to trade deeds with you. They'd trade two weeks for your one. I'd make that trade, and I'm a happy Hyatt owner. SH already trades like an absolute monster. And it's going to become even more exclusive if the vote is Yes/Yes. SH owners have the nicest piece of real estate in the entire city. Everyone wants that. There are people who would love to move there for eight months of the year.


Scoop, if HSH were to secede wouldn’t that limit owners’ trading power to a week for a week through II, or perhaps a week for 2 weeks assuming that the HSH units are lockoffs (I don’t know the configuration)?  That would be less value to a trading owner than what you do, which is to squeeze 3 weeks out of your 1 week?


----------



## DeniseM

The Excellent Adventures of @ScoopKona have been moved here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/scoopkona.340207/


----------



## AJCts411

SteveinHNL said:


> Scoop, if HSH were to secede wouldn’t that limit owners’ trading power to a week for a week through II, or perhaps a week for 2 weeks assuming that the HSH units are lockoffs (I don’t know the configuration)?  That would be less value to a trading owner than what you do, which is to squeeze 3 weeks out of your 1 week?


I copied this from another forum....Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying at Hyatt.   There are real options. MVC is not the only player in this industry.


----------



## ivywag

Emerson said:


> Your wrong! Any votes taken by the board have to be put in the meeting minutes and made public. Florida law. The person that resigned was a board member. Again minutes would reveal that. Also the minutes will reveal who voted for and against. Seems you are the one speculating, “ maybe it was a Hyatt employee or maybe the person did not have the time”?. My posts are not an effort to support Hyatt but to find out what really happened!


Not sure about FL, but in California, Executive Session minutes are not published.  They are private to the Board.


----------



## ivywag

Bunk said:


> I have a question about the imposition of the point system.  Did the developer (e.g., Marriott Vacation Club or the Hyatt equivalent) ever obtain the approval of any of the Board of Directors to restructure the time share plan from being weeks based to points based?


NO.


----------



## bradj

INCHWORM said:


> And one additional thought regarding your question of whether I cast my ballots for BOD elections...I don't recall any of the candidates' BIOs saying "vote for me because I'd like to divorce SH from Hyatt and HRC". I think I would have taken particular note of that! And micro manage? This is NOT a micro decision/proposal...this is as MAJOR as it gets considering I DID NOT and would not have bought into an independently run timeshare!


By name, who are the BOD?


----------



## Pathways

bradj said:


> By name, who are the BOD?


Just look at your Destinations newsletter from HSH


----------



## bradj

Don't get one. It looks like Hyatt is advertising as of 6/6/2022 for a General Manager for SH.


----------



## JanT

I've been continuing to read this thread without taking time to comment because we're in the middle of moving.  Finally got a minute to post so, I'll share what I've learned since my last post.

I had contacted one of the board members to voice my concerns as well as ask a couple of questions. They were open with their answers and didn't seem to be bothered by my contact. In fact, just the opposite. They said the BOD had moved in this direction because Hyatt had become almost impossible to deal with in the last few years. They will not take any direction from the board regarding unit condition, nor will they honor the boards requirements as to the budget etc. They have recently informed the board that they will do things their way and that is the way it is. If they spend more than the board has budgeted that is their option and the board will just be over budget and will have to cover it as it is their decision.

He said they will need to develop a relationship with another exchange company i.e., Interval International or RCI, etc., to give owners flexibility in exchanging.  I told him in no uncertain terms that if they moved to RCI, I am out.  RCI doesn't have the quality of resorts I would expect a prime SH week to pull (should we want to exchange) nor a quality of resorts that are currently held in II.  That will be a HUGE problem for me if they move to RCI.  While I like to use our weeks, I do periodically like to exchange and I want quality resorts to choose from...something I don't feel is in RCI.  If they're going to move to the exchange company currently housing the Aspen resort, I'd have to see about that.

He said the board looks forward to moving the resort forward with a new management company, although a new management company has not been determined as yet. They did not want to spend time and money interviewing companies if the owners did not support the change.  He did say the company (East-West Management) that took over the Grand Aspen resort from Hyatt has come with very high recommendations.  He said they will take the time to properly vet all candidates when the time is right.   They will also develop the ability for owners to trade their units and they want to develop an in house trading program as well.

When I expressed my concerns about the state of the resort when we visited over the week between Christmas and New Year's in 2021 (very lackluster, dingy, and desperately in need for a refurb) he said they have plans in place to remodel the interiors of the units starting with new tile floors that are long overdue (28 years old) and then new furnishings with a Key West flavor.  He said they will deal with a Key's designer instead of one of Hyatt's who seem to have no ideal of the Key West world.  I have to agree with that sentiment.  When we bought our first week there in1995 the units were vibrant with color and really showed the flair of Key West.  This last year...oh my.....brown, dingy, lack of color - it was depressing and desperately lacking the vibrancy of the Key West feel.  Even worse, the unit was pretty run down.  

He stated that Hyatt had already said maintenance fees were going to increase to about $2000.00 per week. Truth or scare tactics? That's a good question. Can the board get that down by leaving the Hyatt system? Again, that's an unknown. He didn't say that. I'm saying that because there are a lot of unknowns with this attempted departure from the Hyatt system. I still don't know that I have enough answers to make me comfortable with what they're proposing. 

Finally, I asked him if the board is prepared to repurchase weeks from those SH owners that decide they no longer want to own there if the resort leaves HRC. He said that is not on the table but those wishing to sell shouldn't have any problem selling since it's such a high demand resort. That may or may not be true. There are currently about 18 listings on Redweek. I don't know where else there are listings because I haven't looked. The board member did tell me that they had been working hard to sell weeks that were due to foreclosure, etc., and only a few were left. So....will there be an influx of weeks for sale if SH leaves Hyatt? A lot of people might buy because of the Hyatt name. If SH moves to independent management I'm not sure how many people will feel comfortable with that. It will be interesting to see how many people decide to sell, if any. I personally have concerns about independent management because there's plenty of nightmare stories about that, too.

I think the urgency in this movement is that now Hyatt is aware what is being attempted. They'll be exercising ROFR on everything in an attempt to retain control and will if they can grab enough resale weeks to jam into HPP. I don't like that kind of maneuver but it's business and let's face it, they do NOT want to lose SH. They should step it up and do the right thing by eliminating some fees for multiple week owners, get the resort refurbished, have minimal management fee increases, and stop being a pain in the ass to deal with. That might go a long way to making people a little happier. 

I'm still on the fence about how I'm going to vote. I'm just not sure I'm on board with an independent management company. I've heard about too many instances of resorts falling into disrepair, huge egos running amok and causing a lot of damage, etc. At least with Hyatt, I KNOW what I'm dealing with there. The fact that the board doesn't seem to have explored independent management companies is concerning. Although, I'm not sure I believe that since he mentioned the one that is now running Aspen. I tend to believe that is the company they plan to go to if Hyatt is dropped. Not saying that's a bad thing but I don't think I like the back door handshake that might have occurred either. If it's been explored, then just say that.

Anyway, that's all I know. Again, I'm still on the fence. I'm tempted to hop a plane to Key West to attend the July 14th meeting just to see the fireworks that might be going off. 

Jan


----------



## magicjourney

JanT said:


> Finally, I asked him if the board is prepared to repurchase weeks from those SH owners that decide they no longer want to own there if the resort leaves HRC. He said that is not on the table but those wishing to sell shouldn't have any problem selling since it's such a high demand resort. That may or may not be true. There are currently about 18 listings on Redweek. I don't know where else there are listings because I haven't looked. The board member did tell me that they had been working hard to sell weeks that were due to foreclosure, etc., and only a few were left. So....will there be an influx of weeks for sale if SH leaves Hyatt? A lot of people might buy because of the Hyatt name. If SH moves to independent management I'm not sure how many people will feel comfortable with that. It will be interesting to see how many people decide to sell, if any. I personally have concerns about independent management because there's plenty of nightmare stories about that, too.



Thanks for spending time talking to BOD member and posting these useful information.
One comment on 'Hyatt Name': It definitely helps resort like beach house, windward pointe, but may not be a big deal for high-demand resorts at prime location.  I think Galleon Resort has been mentioned several times as a close comparison. Let's use it as an example of independent resort vs. Hyatt resort:
Hyatt Sunset Harbor  vs.  Galleon
MFs: $1,800  vs.  $1,200
Resale price from redweek.com: Min: $5,000, Max: $18,500 (week 27 and 51 sold at $6,700 and $12,500)  vs.  Min: $18,500, Max: $59,500 ( week 35 and 46 sold at $18,500 and $20,500).
I do like the point system as an option, but is it worth 50% premium on MFs? I am ok to pay $100-$200 club fees, but not $600. I think the high MFs also contribute to the significantly lower resale value.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> He said they will take the time to properly vet all candidates when the time is right.   They will also develop the ability for owners to trade their units and they want to develop an in house trading program as well.
> 
> When I expressed my concerns about the state of the resort when we visited over the week between Christmas and New Year's in 2021 (very lackluster, dingy, and desperately in need for a refurb) he said they have plans in place to remodel the interiors of the units starting with new tile floors that are long overdue (28 years old) and then new furnishings with a Key West flavor.  He said they will deal with a Key's designer instead of one of Hyatt's who seem to have no ideal of the Key West world.  I have to agree with that sentiment.
> 
> He stated that Hyatt had already said maintenance fees were going to increase to about $2000.00 per week. Truth or scare tactics? That's a good question. Can the board get that down by leaving the Hyatt system? Again, that's an unknown. He didn't say that. I'm saying that because there are a lot of unknowns with this attempted departure from the Hyatt system. I still don't know that I have enough answers to make me comfortable with what they're proposing.



A few things which may or may not help with your calculus:

1) SH shouldn't be compared to other HRC resorts, even the KW resorts. Compare it to the Galleon. That's a more apples-to-apples comparison. Last I heard, Galleon owners are happy with their resort, it's condition, its resale value and the maintenance fees.

2) If HRC is kicked to the curb, the line items for club dues and Interval membership immediately vanish. Whether the management company which replaces HRC provides more savings isn't known -- but if Aspen is any indication, that's a big yes.

3) Haven't SH owners had loads of "reserve funding" in their annual fees? (I own at Beach House, so I don't know.) If that money isn't going to renovate units, why isn't it? If SH is looking dingy, that should set off warning alarms, red flags, you name it. It's easier to keep a place looking nice than it is to make a dingy place nice again.

One thing is certain, MVC is buying as many ROFRs as they can to put a big thumb on the scale for the vote. I think it would be interesting for a SH diamond owner -- who thinks he or she wants to walk away from timesharing anyway -- sell the week to a friend at an inflated price. If MVC takes the week, we'd know they're buying everything they can, regardless of cost. And if not, owner and friend cancel the deal and no harm done.


----------



## Emerson

The only question I have is who will be the first to jump ship?


----------



## JanT

Some valid points there, Scoop.  Like I said, I'm on the fence.  Regarding the line items you mentioned, we don't really know if there will be some kind of club dues and some kind of exchange membership fee will have to be implemented.  It may not be as pricey as II but no way is exchanging going to be free.

Oh definitely, MVC is going to pick up as many ROFRs as they can. SH is a gem they don't want to lose BUT it looks like it might happen. If it does, I'll make the decision whether I want to bail out or not. I don't want to drag my feet too long and then face not being able to unload my weeks because all Hell has broken loose under an independent management company. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I have serious concerns - especially when lots of egos are involved. 

I do not compare SH to the other KW HRC resorts in terms of location.  That can't be beat.  BUT, this last visit was concerning in terms of how the unit looked.  I've stayed at BH but not Windward.  The last time I stayed at BH, I'd say the unit was in good as shape as SH this past year.  I was pretty surprised.  But, the location of SH and if the units are refurbed and brought back to Key West style, it's really pretty perfect there.  Oh Hell!!  Now I want to go to Key West.  LoL  



ScoopKona said:


> A few things which may or may not help with your calculus:
> 
> 1) SH shouldn't be compared to other HRC resorts, even the KW resorts. Compare it to the Galleon. That's a more apples-to-apples comparison. Last I heard, Galleon owners are happy with their resort, it's condition, its resale value and the maintenance fees.
> 
> 2) If HRC is kicked to the curb, the line items for club dues and Interval membership immediately vanish. Whether the management company which replaces HRC provides more savings isn't known -- but if Aspen is any indication, that's a big yes.
> 
> 3) Haven't SH owners had loads of "reserve funding" in their annual fees? (I own at Beach House, so I don't know.) If that money isn't going to renovate units, why isn't it? If SH is looking dingy, that should set off warning alarms, red flags, you name it. It's easier to keep a place looking nice than it is to make a dingy place nice again.
> 
> One thing is certain, MVC is buying as many ROFRs as they can to put a big thumb on the scale for the vote. I think it would be interesting for a SH diamond owner -- who thinks he or she wants to walk away from timesharing anyway -- sell the week to a friend at an inflated price. If MVC takes the week, we'd know they're buying everything they can, regardless of cost. And if not, owner and friend cancel the deal and no harm done.


----------



## Kal

zebraski said:


> I can't believe it... just this past Monday, 6/6 they tried to get us to buy 500 points for $10K to get us in the trading pool and "hyattize" our owned week.  We're not that stupid...we just went for the $200 in gift certificates.  But what would have happened if we had done that? Another question...how many unit weeks does Hyatt own at Sunset Harbor.  They claim to be buying them all up. Are there enough of us owners left to get this passed?  I'm definitely for it.  Our sales gal even went so far as to say that if we didn't do it and the building was destroyed somehow we would be liable...actual words!!!
> If you're a Board Member and need help contacting owners to tell them the truth...I'm in.


Portfolio owns 160 units out of a total 2040 unit weeks.  That keeps them out of the action so it's why MVC is in a panic.  Things must not be doing well in Portfolio land.  It used to be 650 points at about $13K.  But the $20/point seems to hold as a bottom line.  So tell the victims MVC is buying up all the resales.  Interesting that they mention the word "resales".  I thought they would cut the huckster's tongue out if they said that horrible word.


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> Portfolio owns 160 units out of a total 2040 unit weeks.  That keeps them out of the action so it's why MVC is in a panic.


I have asked this before without an answer, but do we even know yet what percentage of ownership they need for a Yes vote to consider it successful? Is it 50% of those that vote, or a super majority of those that vote, perhaps 65% or 75%? What percentage do they need for a quorum? Say they need 25% for a quorum and only get 25% of owners voting. That means 510 votes total. HRC 160 will easily win when they vote no on every one of their ballots and only get a few yes from other owners.


----------



## Kal

dioxide45 said:


> I have asked this before without an answer, but do we even know yet what percentage of ownership they need for a Yes vote to consider it successful? Is it 50% of those that vote, or a super majority of those that vote, perhaps 65% or 75%? What percentage do they need for a quorum? Say they need 25% for a quorum and only get 25% of owners voting. That means 260 votes total. HRC 160 will easily win when they vote no on every one of their ballots.


What??? 25% of 2040 total = 510 votes


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> What??? 25% of 2040 total = 510 votes


So you point out the mistake on the math but don't answer the heard of the question? 160 votes out of 510 could still be enough to snaffu a yes vote given that some owners will certainly be voting no. WHAT IS THE VOTE THRESHOLD FOR A YES TO PASS?


----------



## JanT

dioxide,

I've emailed my contact to see if I can get an answer to your question.  I'd like to know myself.  We'll see if they answer.  If they do, I'll post it here.  I don't believe I've ever seen anything to indicate what constitutes a quorum, etc.



dioxide45 said:


> I have asked this before without an answer, but do we even know yet what percentage of ownership they need for a Yes vote to consider it successful? Is it 50% of those that vote, or a super majority of those that vote, perhaps 65% or 75%? What percentage do they need for a quorum? Say they need 25% for a quorum and only get 25% of owners voting. That means 510 votes total. HRC 160 will easily win when they vote no on every one of their ballots and only get a few yes from other owners.


----------



## dioxide45

JanT said:


> dioxide,
> 
> I've emailed my contact to see if I can get an answer to your question.  I'd like to know myself.  We'll see if they answer.  If they do, I'll post it here.  I don't believe I've ever seen anything to indicate what constitutes a quorum, etc.


Thanks. I skimmed through the hundred plus pages of the resort CC&Rs and can't seem to find anything definitive about termination of the agreement other than something about "mutual" agreement to terminate. The only thing I seem to find about a quorum is 15%. With all that and barring anything in there that I didn't find, I think they only need a quorum of 15% and then 50% plus one vote to pass. Let us know what your contact tells you.


----------



## JanT

dioxide,

Where did you find the resort CC&Rs?  I don’t know that I’ve ever seen them. But, it’s late here and maybe I’m too tired from moving to remember.



dioxide45 said:


> Thanks. I skimmed through the hundred plus pages of the resort CC&Rs and can't seem to find anything definitive about termination of the agreement other than something about "mutual" agreement to terminate. The only thing I seem to find about a quorum is 15%. With all that and barring anything in there that I didn't find, I think they only need a quorum of 15% and then 50% plus one vote to pass. Let us know what your contact tells you.


----------



## dioxide45

JanT said:


> dioxide,
> 
> Where did you find the resort CC&Rs?  I don’t know that I’ve ever seen them. But, it’s late here and maybe I’m too tired from moving to remember.


I downloaded them from the Monroe County recorder website. They are too large to post here.


----------



## JanT

Ok thank you.  I might have looked at them years ago but have forgotten.  I’m going to check them out tomorrow.  It will be interesting to see if my contact answers my questions.  If so, I’ll post it here.  Thanks for the help!



dioxide45 said:


> I downloaded them from the Monroe County recorder website. They are too large to post here.


----------



## SteveinHNL

I believe quorum information would be found in the association bylaws if anyone has them.


----------



## dioxide45

SteveinHNL said:


> I believe quorum information would be found in the association bylaws if anyone has them.


I have them, but they are too big to share and may have been amended some since the original CCRs were created in 1994.
Let's see if this works. I have uploaded to Google drive and shared it. It will probably indicate it is too big to view/open and ask you to download it instead;




__





						Landmark Web Official Records Search.pdf
					






					drive.google.com


----------



## AJCts411

JanT, post: 
...They said the BOD had moved in this direction because Hyatt had become almost impossible to deal with in the last few years. They will not take any direction from the board regarding unit condition, nor will they honor the boards requirements as to the budget etc. They have recently informed the board that they will do things their way and that is the way it is. If they spend more than the board has budgeted that is their option and the board will just be over budget and will have to cover it as it is their decision.

...When I expressed my concerns about the state of the resort when we visited over the week between Christmas and New Year's in 2021 (very lackluster, dingy, and desperately in need for a refurb)Even worse, the unit was pretty run down....

...He stated that Hyatt had already said maintenance fees were going to increase to about $2000.00 per week. Truth or scare tactics? That's a good question. Can the board get that down by leaving the Hyatt system? Again, that's an unknown. ..

...Finally, I asked him if the board is prepared to repurchase weeks from those SH owners that decide they no longer want to own there if the resort leaves HRC.

...I think the urgency in this movement is that now Hyatt is aware what is being attempted. They'll be exercising ROFR on everything in an attempt to retain control and will if they can grab enough resale weeks to jam into HPP.


Appreciate your input and speaking with a BOD member.   Within your post, I picked the reasons to leave Hyatt and to comment.  I don't call the system Hyatt, simply because is is Hyatt in name only this is MVC now.   
MVC is pushing for higher maintenance for what reason? What is there end game?  After all MVC owns portfolio week units.   Mismanaged budgets?  Portfolio justification? 100% for sure this is a positive step to MVC bottom line...profits.   I'd say it is the truth, why would MVC threaten the owners with more fees?
I have a different opinion about the brand name.  The HYATT name and connection to the word timeshare raised concerns when I purchased my first week.  I looked at Banyan, Galleon and Sunset.  I suggest that the the brand name has both positive and negative  if used as a "sales" point.  I had none of the same concerns at Banyan or Galleon. I settled on Sunset because of the LOW price, even though tit had higher maintenance fees than Galleon for a two bedroom.  The difference was not large maybe $100.00 but now look at the difference and it is still rising.
Will the BOD purchase weeks...Will MVC purchase weeks at fair value for those owners effected as portfolio over runs week ownership?  And I do not mean ROFR low ball.  Don't know why you are still sitting on the fence, your own comments easily tilt the scales to yes IMO.


----------



## dioxide45

I suspect the higher maintenance fees are to cover the additional expenses that HPP brings. Nightly or shorter stays require more cleanings than week long stays. When MVC introduced their DC program on the Marriott side, the indicated that additional fees baked into the trust would cover additional cleanings. I suspect that is actually true when owners use their true trust points, but if an owner also has weeks "enrolled" into the program, fees for the additional cleanings those stays bring are then passed on to the owners at the resorts in higher housekeeping fees in the annual budget. Only when people are using trust points for a stay is there a reimbursement back to the HOA.

Not only did Marriott resorts see big increases in the housekeeping line item of the annual budget after they introduced the points program, we also saw increases in other areas impacted by short stays such as front desk costs.


----------



## Bunk

I would argue that the Developer’s right of refusal is no longer enforceable because Hyatt has abandoned the Unit Week time-share plan upon which the right of refusal was based.

The Hyatt Developer’s right of refusal is part of a timeshare plan where Unit weeks are supposed to be sold and all unit owners are able to compete on a first come first served reservation basis. (Page 37 paragraph 12.14 of the Declaration of Condominium states: “It is the express intent of this Declaration, which intent is consented to by each Owner through acceptance of a conveyance hereunder, that all Units shall be available for use by all Owners in this Condominium and in all other Club Resorts, if any, at all times on a first come, first served reservation basis subject to the priority rights and other provisions set forth in the Hyatt Vacation Club Resort Agreement …(Exhibit G) and the Hyatt Vacation Cub Rules and Regulation…(Exhibit H).  This is on book 11376 page 1129.

The Developer is no longer attempting to sell Unit weeks. Instead it is selling points, which materially changes the nature of the timeshare plan by permitting one or two night occupancy. In addition, as we are reminded during our updates, the result of the point system is to diminish the number of weeks which are available for booking by the Unit Week Owners.

I would argue that it is inequitable to enforce the right of refusal where the Developer has unilaterally changed the time share structure and in fact abandoned the plan of selling and occupying units by the week. The issue is whether the various provisions giving the developer the ability to change the plan are enforceable where the Developer has abandoned the plan.


----------



## Bunk

Look at the ByLaws at book 1376 page 1166 paragraph C(3).  If the Developer is no longer holding unit weeks for sale (because it has converted to points), is the Developer no longer entitled to elect members to the Board.


----------



## Bunk

Does the Condo receive net rental proceeds from the developer.  Look at Paragraph 5.5 on book 1376 page 1214.  Would you say that renting points constitutes rental of unreserved timeshare interests.  

Also I would argue that any costs that result from the abandonment of is not a common expense and should be paid by the Developer.  Has the Board raise this issue


----------



## dioxide45

I would suspect any issue with ROFR or grievances against HRC would need to be taken up with litigation/arbitration. Greatly increasing costs to the HOA.


----------



## SteveinHNL

Thanks to Dioxide for uploading the condo docs, bylaws, management agreement, and resort agreement.  So according to the Bylaws, quorum for Association meetings is 15% of owners and decisions must be passed by simple majority of owners present.


----------



## RM@SH

JanT said:


> Some valid points there, Scoop.  Like I said, I'm on the fence.  Regarding the line items you mentioned, we don't really know if there will be some kind of club dues and some kind of exchange membership fee will have to be implemented.  It may not be as pricey as II but no way is exchanging going to be free.
> 
> Oh definitely, MVC is going to pick up as many ROFRs as they can. SH is a gem they don't want to lose BUT it looks like it might happen. If it does, I'll make the decision whether I want to bail out or not. I don't want to drag my feet too long and then face not being able to unload my weeks because all Hell has broken loose under an independent management company. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I have serious concerns - especially when lots of egos are involved.
> 
> I do not compare SH to the other KW HRC resorts in terms of location.  That can't be beat.  BUT, this last visit was concerning in terms of how the unit looked.  I've stayed at BH but not Windward.  The last time I stayed at BH, I'd say the unit was in good as shape as SH this past year.  I was pretty surprised.  But, the location of SH and if the units are refurbed and brought back to Key West style, it's really pretty perfect there.  Oh Hell!!  Now I want to go to Key West.  LoL



Have we been given any information and/or options if MVC is voted out?  All seems to be speculation.  Also, with all due respect, we have 2 what I believe are owners on another site shilling like crazy to vote yes however it's all a one sided campaign.  Very skeptical.  I am sure they are on this thread somewhere also.  Have to wonder if they work for or own a management company that may be an option we aren't being informed of.  Really wouldn't mind if they are if they would only state some of the other side for us to compare.  Glad you were able to contact a board member.  I was given 2 email addresses and both do not respond.  I am totally on the fence also but very difficult to vote when you only know one of the 2 sides you are voting for.  Very frustrating.


----------



## JanT

The only information I got was what I stated.  That they hadn't done any real research on other management companies because they didn't want to waste Association $ on it if owners didn't want to leave HRC.  I, personally, am not sure if I really believe that.  How in the world would they know they can cut costs by leaving HRC if they haven't researched other management companies to get some kind of initial quote.  So, there's just that question niggling in my mind that questions what they have and haven't done in terms of researching other management companies.  The only comment I did get was that the management company overseeing the Aspen property was doing a great job.  Is there some tie between board members and that management company?  I have no idea and I'm not accusing anyone of that.  I really don't think there's anything nefarious going on behind the scenes but my "bullshit meter" is registering higher than it should be.  Until I get some answers, I'm not committing to a "Yes" vote.  It very well might be the right thing to do but I'm not pushing the "Yes" button until I'm sure I have the information I need.



RM@SH said:


> Have we been given any information and/or options if MVC is voted out?  All seems to be speculation.  Also, with all due respect, we have 2 what I believe are owners on another site shilling like crazy to vote yes however it's all a one sided campaign.  Very skeptical.  I am sure they are on this thread somewhere also.  Have to wonder if they work for or own a management company that may be an option we aren't being informed of.  Really wouldn't mind if they are if they would only state some of the other side for us to compare.  Glad you were able to contact a board member.  I was given 2 email addresses and both do not respond.  I am totally on the fence also but very difficult to vote when you only know one of the 2 sides you are voting for.  Very frustrating.


----------



## JanT

That's a pretty low quorum %.  



SteveinHNL said:


> Thanks to Dioxide for uploading the condo docs, bylaws, management agreement, and resort agreement.  So according to the Bylaws, quorum for Association meetings is 15% of owners and decisions must be passed by simple majority of owners present.


----------



## Emerson

JanT said:


> The only information I got was what I stated.  That they hadn't done any real research on other management companies because they didn't want to waste Association $ on it if owners didn't want to leave HRC.  I, personally, am not sure if I really believe that.  How in the world would they know they can cut costs by leaving HRC if they haven't researched other management companies to get some kind of initial quote.  So, there's just that question niggling in my mind that questions what they have and haven't done in terms of researching other management companies.  The only comment I did get was that the management company overseeing the Aspen property was doing a great job.  Is there some tie between board members and that management company?  I have no idea and I'm not accusing anyone of that.  I really don't think there's anything nefarious going on behind the scenes but my "bullshit meter" is registering higher than it should be.  Until I get some answers, I'm not committing to a "Yes" vote.  It very well might be the right thing to do but I'm not pushing the "Yes" button until I'm sure I have the information I need.


----------



## SteveinHNL

JanT said:


> That's a pretty low quorum %.


Yes it is. Meaning the developer wanted decisions to be made without need of much owner participation.


----------



## Emerson

Just so you know, everything with the Aspen breakaway deal is far from perfect. There are reports of huge lawsuits along with conflicts of interest among board members. There seems to be a lot of comparisons between Aspen and Sunset Harbor that aren’t simply pertinent. The ownerships are far different .
This entire effort is premature and flawed.


----------



## JanT

I simply called it Hyatt because that's what name is on it at the current time.  Of course, it's MVC.

I have no idea if MVC is really pushing for higher maintenance fees. I said that's what my contact old me. I don't know that they are for a fact. They might be and if they are, well, then everyone has to decide if they're going to continue their membership with SH. Rising MF's aren't exactly a big shock to anyone or they shouldn't be. Happens virtually every year by some margin.

That's interesting that the Hyatt name caused you concern when you were looking for a timeshare in KW. Maybe you have more knowledge than I did or do regarding Hyatt. But, to most people I think the Hyatt name is a positive - even if it isn't. It's the perception.

My question about the BOD purchasing weeks from people who might want to bail was mostly tongue in cheek. I was pissed at the time because I was blindsided by this proposal to leave HRC. I didn't expect the answer to be, "Yes." We own 3 weeks at SH and like to use our weeks but we have used some of our points to go to Hyatt Siesta Key which is VERY hard to get into. I've seen ONE week at Hyatt Siesta Key in II in the past 10 or more years. So, if SH leaves Hyatt, I'm probably not getting back to Hyatt Siesta Key without paying cash and sorry.....just not willing to lay out that kind of money for it. We've done a couple of other exchanges on points as well and I like to have that option. Sorry if no one understands that or likes it but that's my choice.

I'm on the fence because I don't like how this has been done and I don't feel I have enough information. I'm not going to just vote "Yes" because a bunch of people tell me to. Those people almost exclusively are people who own weeks at SH, never want or need to trade from there, and want to lower their cash output because they don't like all the fees. I haven't seen one of them complain about the state of the resort or the need for remodel.  No...it's been all about the fees.

Look, I'm not saying I'm going to vote "No." I'm saying I want someone to cough up some REAL information - not speculation, not vague accusations of maintenance fee hikes. I want someone to tell me they've done extensive research into some independent management companies and tell me WHY they think that management company is the best one for SH and how bringing them on is going to lower MFs, etc. That hasn't been presented to me or anyone else that I know of. I want REAL information which I don't think I've gotten. If they can do that and it is a positive thing for SH, GREAT! But, I'm not going to vote "Yes" and take a chance that we're jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The BOD should have done their research and presented some real information if they wanted owners to get on board with this. Instead, they shove out some email saying Hyatt/MVC is horrible, they want to leave HRC, and give no real explanation for it. The information I got was because I emailed my contact and ASKED. They volunteered zilch in that email to owners. They want owners to go along with this, then they need to provide a bunch more information that shows me it's the right thing to do.




> Appreciate your input and speaking with a BOD member.   Within your post, I picked the reasons to leave Hyatt and to comment.  I don't call the system Hyatt, simply because is is Hyatt in name only this is MVC now.
> MVC is pushing for higher maintenance for what reason? What is there end game?  After all MVC owns portfolio week units.   Mismanaged budgets?  Portfolio justification? 100% for sure this is a positive step to MVC bottom line...profits.   I'd say it is the truth, why would MVC threaten the owners with more fees?
> I have a different opinion about the brand name.  The HYATT name and connection to the word timeshare raised concerns when I purchased my first week.  I looked at Banyan, Galleon and Sunset.  I suggest that the the brand name has both positive and negative  if used as a "sales" point.  I had none of the same concerns at Banyan or Galleon. I settled on Sunset because of the LOW price, even though tit had higher maintenance fees than Galleon for a two bedroom.  The difference was not large maybe $100.00 but now look at the difference and it is still rising.
> Will the BOD purchase weeks...Will MVC purchase weeks at fair value for those owners effected as portfolio over runs week ownership?  And I do not mean ROFR low ball.  Don't know why you are still sitting on the fence, your own comments easily tilt the scales to yes IMO.


----------



## JanT

That's typically how it works in real estate development.  They hold all the cards - for awhile.  Then typically, after a certain amount of real estate is sold, the power should shift to the owners.  There probably should have been some work done to get the CC&Rs/By-laws changed and approved by ownership in order to shift the level of power from Hyatt/MVC to the owners at SH.



SteveinHNL said:


> Yes it is. Meaning the developer wanted decisions to be made without need of much owner participation.


----------



## AJCts411

This is from the BOD.  And the reasoning behind the BOD recommendation to vote yes.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> Just so you know, everything with the Aspen breakaway deal is far from perfect. There are reports of huge lawsuits along with conflicts of interest among board members. There seems to be a lot of comparisons between Aspen and Sunset Harbor that aren’t simply pertinent. The ownerships are far different .
> This entire effort is premature and flawed.



Why would a not sunset owner be so inclined as to dive into the workings of Sunset.    This from a happy Aspen owner....Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying at Hyatt. This same person also commented on how each Aspen owner put up $7500 for lawyer fees to win this decision against Hyatt. Goes on to say how they have paved the road. for other resorts. The lawsuit you refere to seems to be decided in the owners favor. Or does Hyatt aka MVC risk more millions to lose again? Have to say at least you have expanded your repertoire from smearing BOD's reputations to add lawsuits.


----------



## dioxide45

AJCts411 said:


> Why would a not sunset owner be so inclined as to dive into the workings of Sunset.    This from a happy Aspen owner....Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying at Hyatt. This same person also commented on how each Aspen owner put up $7500 for lawyer fees to win this decision against Hyatt. Goes on to say how they have paved the road. for other resorts. The lawsuit you refere to seems to be decided in the owners favor. Or does Hyatt aka MVC risk more millions to lose again? Have to say at least you have expanded your repertoire from smearing BOD's reputations to add lawsuits.


Has anyone really used Elite Alliance to speak to what exactly it offers and if it is any better than HRC collection and II? Sure, they can have a fancy name and some dots on a map, but in reality what is the likelihood of being able to exchange into these other properties?


----------



## Kal

AJCts411 said:


> Why would a not sunset owner be so inclined as to dive into the workings of Sunset.    This from a happy Aspen owner....Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying Aspen is now a member of a Luxury exchange program www.elitealliance.com at a fraction of the price of what we were paying at Hyatt. This same person also commented on how each Aspen owner put up $7500 for lawyer fees to win this decision against Hyatt. Goes on to say how they have paved the road. for other resorts. The lawsuit you refere to seems to be decided in the owners favor. Or does Hyatt aka MVC risk more millions to lose again? Have to say at least you have expanded your repertoire from smearing BOD's reputations to add lawsuits.


Don't even engage someone who doesn't own at HSH.  Matter of fact, those are words typical of a shill.


----------



## RM@SH

You couldn't have stated the issues any better. Our feelings exactly. My BS meter may be registering a little higher than yours. I cannot get any information. BOD are ignoring requests, the 2 shills refuse to supply any information and supposedly nobody pushing for a yes vote know anyone on the board. Hmmm.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## RM@SH

Kal said:


> Don't even engage someone who doesn't own at HSH. Matter of fact, those are words typical of a shill.


Wish we could limit this to HSH owners only. There is one shill campaigning like crazy for yes votes that appears to be a professional shill per their FB pages.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## magicjourney

According to the latest email from BOD: "If at least 50% +1 of the Unit Weeks vote, each contract terminates if 66% of the owners voting, vote “yes” on termination. " It's a tough one!



June 13, 2022

Dear Fellow Owners,

The Board has received many emails from you in response to our June 3 Owner Letter. You have asked important questions, and we provide answers below which we trust are helpful.

The Board’s goal is for all owners to be fully informed, so please keep your questions coming. There are NO bad questions!

WE URGE ALL OWNERS TO VOTE! This is our property and we have a collective responsibility to decide what is in our collective best interest.

That is why we have called the Special Meeting to be held on July 14th.

Thank you,

Don Heisler, Meeting Coordinator & Vice President Member Services


(1) Why didn't I receive the email of the Owner Letter or Voting Ballot? 

The Association sent an email Notice of Meeting on June 3 to all known owner email addresses. The Notice of Meeting has links to the Owner Letter and to the electronic ballot. A few emails bounced and a few emails may have gone to Junk/Spam, but most were received. Paper Notice of Meeting with Owner Letter and ballot have been mailed to owners that have not provided an email address. If you have not received the Notice of Meeting, please contact Don Heisler.

(2) The termination topic seems to have come out of nowhere - why hasn't the Board previously discussed or vetted this topic with owners?

The topic arose approximately four years ago when our Developer stopped selling Unit Weeks and Hyatt launched the Portfolio Club which started selling Portfolio Club points. As time progressed, so did the effects of the Portfolio Club program that erodes our deeded week program that the vast majority of Sunset Harbor owners bought into. The owner of the Hyatt Residence Club (Marriot Vacations Worldwide) is committed to the Portfolio Club points-based program to the detriment, the Board believes, of deeded week owners.  With the recent Hyatt Grand Aspen contract terminations, the Board investigated and found the situation in Aspen similar to that at Sunset Harbor. As time has gone by, the Board has heard from more and more owners that have expressed concern and displeasure with the direction of Sunset Harbor and the Board decided it was time to solicit an owner vote.  

(3) Why is the Board pursuing the termination of the Management Contract and the Club Agreement?

Due to the number of owners that have expressed concern and displeasure with the direction of Sunset Harbor, the Board called a Special Meeting and an owner vote to allow owners to determine what is in their collective best interest. 

(4) What's the value in leaving Hyatt Residence Club?

Termination of the Management and Club contracts will restore owner control of our property and programs allowing our Association to determine what is in the best interest of our owners.

(5) My unit is a lock off floor plan, will I be able to split my unit into two separate reservations?

Absolutely yes! The Board believes the Club’s policy allowing only one reservation for your deeded week is wrong.   

(6) Will I be able to exchange into other weeks at Sunset Harbor? I like to extend my stay at Sunset Harbor beyond my deeded week by obtaining another SH reservation – will I still be able to do that? 

The Board’s plan and intent is to provide a Sunset Harbor only website for owners to post their Unit Weeks for exclusive trade or rent with other Sunset Harbor owners.

(7) Will I be able to exchange to other Hyatt Residence Club properties if the Club is terminated?

No, unless the Club exercises its discretion provided for in paragraph 9.5 of the Club Agreement to allow Owners to participate in the Club. If the Club does not allow owners that opportunity, the Board’s plan and intent is to secure a new exchange program for owners.

(8) If the Club is terminated, will other Hyatt Residence Club members be able to exchange into Sunset Harbor?

Hyatt Residence Club owners at other Club properties will not be able to use the Club to exchange into Sunset Harbor.

(9) If the Club is terminated, what will happen with existing reservations I have at Sunset Harbor as well as those with Interval International? 

Any reservations an owner has made or makes through December 31, 2022, the date the Board plans to set as the effective date for termination of the Club Agreement, will be honored. This applies to both Club reservations and Interval International reservations.

(10) The Owner Letter and Appendix was one-sided as it only presented positives to terminate the Management and Club. What are the negatives?

For owners who use their Unit Week, the Board believes the terminations have multiple advantages. For owners who want Club exchange privileges, termination of the Club Agreement is a negative as was stated in the Association’s June 3 Owner Letter. As noted in the answer to question #11 below, the Board’s plan and intent is to secure a new exchange program if the Club Agreement is terminated and the Club does not allow Owners to participate in the Club.

(11) Why didn't the Board say who the new management company and new exchange company will be if the Management Contract and Club Agreement are terminated?

Securing new management and a new exchange company while the current agreements are in force is legally not possible prior to terminations. If the contracts are terminated, the Board plan and intent is to secure a new management company and a new exchange company after the July 14 meeting.

The Board plan and intent is to set a Management Contract termination date which will provide time for a smooth management transition and to set a Club Agreement termination date of December 31, 2022, which will allow owners time to use their Club points as noted in Question #9 above. The Club termination date will also provide time to evaluate replacement exchange options and to select an exchange program which provides the best opportunities for our owners. With Sunset Harbor’s beautiful Key West setting, the Board expects our resort to be attractive to exchange companies.

(12) Does the Board of Directors have a proposed new budget to show much money this will actually save owners?

The Board reviewed savings from elimination of the Club Fee and reduction in the Management Fee as noted in the Owner Letter. If terminations are successful, an increase in insurance cost is likely while savings are also likely in the “Administrative” expense category. The current high rate of inflation will put pressure on our 2023 budget; however, contract terminations will reduce fee expense and provide the Board with the ability to manage and control all expense categories in the best interest of owners.

(13) Why did Don Heisler sign the Owner Letter instead of the Board president?

Due to our Association President’s numerous responsibilities, our President requested Don Heisler oversee and coordinate the termination effort. The Board assigned Don the title of Vice President, Member Services as well as Meeting Coordinator for the July 14 Meeting.

(14) What is the percentage of yes votes needed to terminate the Management Contract and Club Agreement?

If at least 50% + 1 of the Unit Weeks vote, each contract terminates if 66% of the owners voting, vote “yes” on termination.

(15) Does the Board intend to reduce the quality standards of the resort to reduce maintenance fees?

No. The Board will utilize the current standards and projected upgrades and replacements as a guide moving forward.

(16) What happens to parking in the adjacent parking deck if the Management Contract and Club Agreement is terminated?

Nothing. The Association has a lease agreement for 45 parking spaces that extends to 2025 that is unchanged by terminations.

(17) What happens to the units currently owned by the Portfolio Club Trust if the termination is successful?

Nothing. The Portfolio Club Trust will continue to own their Unit Weeks with rights and privileges the same as any Sunset Harbor owner.


----------



## Kal

Wouldn't it be nice if MCV responded in a similar manner during their 6/22 dog show.


----------



## dioxide45

Please realize that MVC (Marriott Vacation Club) is not the same as MVW (Marriott Vacations Worldwide). MVW owns MVC and ILG. ILG also owns HRC. MVC very likely has a completely separate management structure than HRC. MVW may be putting pressure on HRC to beef up revenue, but using the term MVC in this context is incorrect.


----------



## AJCts411

RM@SH said:


> Wish we could limit this to HSH owners only. There is one shill campaigning like crazy for yes votes that appears to be a professional shill per their FB pages.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


That could be me....at least 2 maybe 3 mvc shill sounds like you over on faceebook...who raise nothing but false concerns, point to conflict of interests and maybe lawyers.  ignore similar Aspen results. ignore mvc  portfolio push at owners expense.  No not a professional shill but very good at calling out bs that smells so bad.  Been on this sit for how long....can you read that?...paid member supporting tug...always published my owned weeks at sunset...best go back to corporate get some new attack talking points


----------



## RM@SH

AJCts411 said:


> That could be me....at least 2 maybe 3 mvc shill sounds like you over on faceebook...who raise nothing but false concerns, point to conflict of interests and maybe lawyers. ignore similar Aspen results. ignore mvc portfolio push at owners expense. No not a professional shill but very good at calling out bs that smells so bad. Been on this sit for how long....can you read that?...paid member supporting tug...always published my owned weeks at sunset...best go back to corporate get some new attack talking points


You make my point. You are so dead set against Hyatt (and I do agree with many of your points) but you refuse to fill everyone in who is asking for the options to be outlined. There are 2 of you campaigning to get rid of Hyatt and thw rest of us are asking questions to explore the options but you shoot everyone down and belittle those who are just looking for information. Give us the options outside of Hyatt so we can make an informed decision. 

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## bizaro86

The portfolio units having the same rights and privileges as the other units after a termination is a potentially big negotiating point in favor of SH owners. HPP will still own them, but if they only let HPP book in week long increments that will make it tough for Hyatt given the promises they've made to HPP owners. Seems like trading more flexibility to existing HPP ownerships is a card an independent board would have.


----------



## Lingber

I received a letter from HRC today basically restating the email they sent a few days ago. I hope everyone submits questions. I'm interested in seeing how they respond. on June 22.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> Don't even engage someone who doesn't own at HSH.  Matter of fact, those are words typical of a shill.


Yes, We don’t own at SH. However, when we purchased our first timeshare from Hyatt,we bought into a club. We have traded into Sunset Harbor for over 10 years and would like to continue to do so. Just the same as SH owners trade into our ownership at Windward or Sedona. If our wanting to continue to do that makes us a shill,GUILTY!


----------



## ScoopKona

Emerson said:


> Yes, We don’t own at SH. However, when we purchased our first timeshare from Hyatt,we bought into a club. We have traded into Sunset Harbor for over 10 years and would like to continue to do so. Just the same as SH owners trade into our ownership at Windward or Sedona. If our wanting to continue to do that makes us a shill,GUILTY!



Yes, guilty.

SH owners need to act in their own self interest. I don't want them to leave, either. (And I will never trade into SH because I'm from Key West. I have better options when I return home.)

If I owned there, I would be leading the charge, tip of the spear, big John Hancock on any document that gave MVC the heave-ho and returned ownership to the owners -- who unlike traders like me -- use what they own. They decide what is right for them -- not you.


----------



## sjsharkie

You have two camps -- those who stay every year (or rent) and those who trade some of the time.  The ones that stay every year assume that maintenance fees will go down and they will get better use of their fees through another management company.  That is a BIG assumption.  But I can understand how the former would want to take that risk, and the latter would feel otherwise.

I see comparisons to Aspen in the previous posts and I don't buy it.  That is a totally different level of property -- much more upscale interiors, fractional ownerships, bundled season ownerships (e.g. summer + mud weeks bundled).  I don't see any comparison in the makeup of ownership.

I can see both sides of the coin here, but I do say the grass is always greener on the other side.  Interested in seeing how this turns out as I own at PP, but really have no skin in the game except for one less property to go to.  I haven't been to the Keys in ages and am more a west coast occupant of Hyatt.


----------



## Sapper

AJCts411 said:


> ... This same person also commented on how each Aspen owner put up $7500 for lawyer fees to win this decision against Hyatt. Goes on to say how they have paved the road. for other resorts. The lawsuit you refere to seems to be decided in the owners favor. Or does Hyatt aka MVC risk more millions to lose again?


Hate to be the barrier of bad news here, but the owners lost the lawsuit:


			https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-01870/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-01870-5.pdf


----------



## ivywag

Sapper said:


> Hate to be the barrier of bad news here, but the owners lost the lawsuit:
> 
> 
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-01870/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-01870-5.pdf


They lost the lawsuit—-trying to get a positive response from Marriott which would have made the club better.  When, the lawsuit was lost, they decided to leave Hyatt/Marriott management.  It was sort of a last resort. The HPP and its 1-7 day reservations were a big part of the problem for them.


----------



## Kal

Sapper said:


> Hate to be the barrier of bad news here, but the owners lost the lawsuit:
> 
> 
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-01870/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-01870-5.pdf


So the Aspen homeowners sued Marriott for various financial causes.  In late 2020, the court said too bad.  Then Aspen fired Marriott, terminated the HRC and hired a new resort manager.  And now they have a new life free of Marriott but still have to allow residual Portfolio occupants.


----------



## Sapper

ivywag said:


> They lost the lawsuit—-trying to get a positive response from Marriott which would have made the club better.  When, the lawsuit was lost, they decided to leave Hyatt/Marriott management.  It was sort of a last resort. The HPP and its 1-7 day reservations were a big part of the problem for them.


Yes, I understand. However, AJC was stating the owners won, they did not. I was pointing that out in case anyone reading this is unaware and might believe Sunset should follow Aspens path because they “won” a lawsuit.


----------



## Sapper

Kal said:


> So the Aspen homeowners sued Marriott for various financial causes.  In late 2020, the court said too bad.  Then Aspen fired Marriott, terminated the HRC and hired a new resort manager.  And now they have a new life free of Marriott but still have to allow residual Portfolio occupants.



Yeah, HPP holds roughly 1/5 of the unit weeks at this property, if I remember correctly.


----------



## AJCts411

RM@SH said:


> You make my point. You are so dead set against Hyatt (and I do agree with many of your points) but you refuse to fill everyone in who is asking for the options to be outlined. There are 2 of you campaigning to get rid of Hyatt and thw rest of us are asking questions to explore the options but you shoot everyone down and belittle those who are just looking for information. Give us the options outside of Hyatt so we can make an informed decision.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk



I've belittled no one but MVC shills who are attacking the integrity of the BOD.   I don;t work for the BOD, not in any campaign,  and appears that the evil BOD has provided more infpormation.  We know that will not be enough thought for you.


----------



## JanT

Ok, a small update from my source who interestingly has become a bit less friendly as I have asked a couple of more questions.  I have been entirely professional with no hostility, actually thanking them several times for all the work they do on the board.  Before, my contacts emails were along the lines of, "Hi Jan, thanks for getting in touch.  I understand your concerns so let me give you the information you're looking for...."  Now, the last two emails have simply been my comments/questions quoted with their curt response written in red.  Literally, nothing else.  No "Hi Jan," no signature line or anything else.  Just very, VERY curt.  I'm sure they're up to their neck in owners asking for information and it sounds like they're getting tired of that.  Perhaps they are getting more pushback than they thought they would.  I'm not sure why they're surprised by that.  You can't just plop this big turd down on everyone and not expect a lot of questions.

Anyway, my first question was about what constituted a quorum in terms of ownership numbers and also, what percentage of that quorum had to vote "Yes" in order for the split from HRC to happen. They responded: "The statute calls for at least 50% of the units must vote and then 66% of those must vote in favor." I think it's actually 50% + 1 based on the other information that they sent out last night.

My next question was to ascertain what time and where the board meeting on the 14th of July was going to be held. They responded with this: "As it stands now the July 14th meeting is just a formality to record the results of the election." Formality or not, owners have a right to be at the meeting, so, it's interesting that they weren't more forthcoming with time and place.

Their final comment to me was this: "None of us want this however the situation requires action and a change is the easiest answer. Otherwise we will have to bring a suit against the management company to try to correct issues that they have caused through their documents. Further they are not allowed to exercise their first right of refusal and have not had that authority for four years. Also charging owners a $650.00 estoppel fee to sell is against Florida law. Hyatt believes because they are a big company they can bully the association that must not go unchallenged. If we change management companies a lot of these type issues go away." It's obvious to me based on comments here and elsewhere that some people DO want the split - mostly those that use their weeks every year, so the board member's assertion that no one wants this is not true.

This particular paragraph raised my eyebrows at bit. First, because there is an obvious implication that the owners will have to take legal action against Hyatt (again I call it Hyatt because that's the name on the resort but of course, it is MVW). Hyatt does charge a $650 transfer fee which is ridiculous (it used to be $500) but the board member calls it an "estoppel fee." There's a difference between a transfer fee and an "estoppel fee." If this is against the law in Florida, why hasn't the board pursued this aggressively previously? Also, stating the Hyatt has no legal right to exercise ROFR for the last 4 years but have done it anyway. Again, why hasn't the Board pursued resolving this previously? Maybe they have but, it doesn't appear that the BOD has taken any legal action previously against Hyatt to correct these issues, so I'm not sure why they're threatening this now. Scare tactics to get owners to vote "Yes" to split from HRC in order to prevent extensive legal fees passed onto the owners? Look, I don't know but I'm curious as to how Hyatt would have gone so unchecked on two things that are supposedly illegal. Big corporation or not, they should have been called out and dealt with on these two issues, if in fact, what was stated is true.

I'll go back to my original statement when this first came up here on TUG. I hate this kind of crap!!! It takes away from other things I need and want to be doing when I have to start researching legalities of documents, checking up on what the board has and hasn't done, etc. But, before I just stamp out 3 votes for "Yes," I'm going to give that serious thought. The undertone of the latest email from my contact gives me serious pause as to exactly what's moving in the background that I might not know about. So.....I'm holding my vote until I see what else I might uncover.


----------



## alameda94501

bizaro86 said:


> The portfolio units having the same rights and privileges as the other units after a termination is a potentially big negotiating point in favor of SH owners. HPP will still own them, but if they only let HPP book in week long increments that will make it tough for Hyatt given the promises they've made to HPP owners. Seems like trading more flexibility to existing HPP ownerships is a card an independent board would have.



Portfolio works because they internally subdivide their own weeks (purchased and annually converted) for the Portfolio members, not book on the (old or new) internal exchange. Portfolio will keep on rolling... just like in Aspen.


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> Ok, a small update from my source who interestingly has become a bit less friendly as I have asked a couple of more questions.  I have been entirely professional with no hostility, actually thanking them several times for all the work they do on the board.  Before, my contacts emails were along the lines of, "Hi Jan, thanks for getting in touch.  I understand your concerns so let me give you the information you're looking for...."  Now, the last two emails have simply been my comments/questions quoted with their curt response written in red.  Literally, nothing else.  No "Hi Jan," no signature line or anything else.  Just very, VERY curt.  I'm sure they're up to their neck in owners asking for information and it sounds like they're getting tired of that.  Perhaps they are getting more pushback than they thought they would.  I'm not sure why they're surprised by that.  You can't just plop this big turd down on everyone and not expect a lot of questions.
> 
> Anyway, my first question was about what constituted a quorum in terms of ownership numbers and also, what percentage of that quorum had to vote "Yes" in order for the split from HRC to happen. They responded: "The statute calls for at least 50% of the units must vote and then 66% of those must vote in favor." I think it's actually 50% + 1 based on the other information that they sent out last night.
> 
> My next question was to ascertain what time and where the board meeting on the 14th of July was going to be held. They responded with this: "As it stands now the July 14th meeting is just a formality to record the results of the election." Formality or not, owners have a right to be at the meeting, so, it's interesting that they weren't more forthcoming with time and place.
> 
> Their final comment to me was this: "None of us want this however the situation requires action and a change is the easiest answer. Otherwise we will have to bring a suit against the management company to try to correct issues that they have caused through their documents. Further they are not allowed to exercise their first right of refusal and have not had that authority for four years. Also charging owners a $650.00 estoppel fee to sell is against Florida law. Hyatt believes because they are a big company they can bully the association that must not go unchallenged. If we change management companies a lot of these type issues go away." It's obvious to me based on comments here and elsewhere that some people DO want the split - mostly those that use their weeks every year, so the board member's assertion that no one wants this is not true.
> 
> This particular paragraph raised my eyebrows at bit. First, because there is an obvious implication that the owners will have to take legal action against Hyatt (again I call it Hyatt because that's the name on the resort but of course, it is MVW). Hyatt does charge a $650 transfer fee which is ridiculous (it used to be $500) but the board member calls it an "estoppel fee." There's a difference between a transfer fee and an "estoppel fee." If this is against the law in Florida, why hasn't the board pursued this aggressively previously? Also, stating the Hyatt has no legal right to exercise ROFR for the last 4 years but have done it anyway. Again, why hasn't the Board pursued resolving this previously? Maybe they have but, it doesn't appear that the BOD has taken any legal action previously against Hyatt to correct these issues, so I'm not sure why they're threatening this now. Scare tactics to get owners to vote "Yes" to split from HRC in order to prevent extensive legal fees passed onto the owners? Look, I don't know but I'm curious as to how Hyatt would have gone so unchecked on two things that are supposedly illegal. Big corporation or not, they should have been called out and dealt with on these two issues, if in fact, what was stated is true.
> 
> I'll go back to my original statement when this first came up here on TUG. I hate this kind of crap!!! It takes away from other things I need and want to be doing when I have to start researching legalities of documents, checking up on what the board has and hasn't done, etc. But, before I just stamp out 3 votes for "Yes," I'm going to give that serious thought. The undertone of the latest email from my contact gives me serious pause as to exactly what's moving in the background that I might not know about. So.....I'm holding my vote until I see what else I might uncover.


I'm not sure of the "...none of us want this.." means?  My read is why do we have to deal with jerks who just want to gouge the owners and harm the legacy weeks owners.  The TRANSFER FEE has always been a money grab.  What's the level of effort to change the data set to show a different name to a unit-week? or add another unit week to an existing owner account?  And then raising the price from $500 to $650?  If I remember back to the dark ages, it may have been something like $75-$100.  I can only imagine what it would take to unravel all the ROFR actions!  That would be a TWO BAGS OF POPCORN EVENT.


----------



## RM@SH

AJCts411 said:


> I've belittled no one but MVC shills who are attacking the integrity of the BOD. I don;t work for the BOD, not in any campaign, and appears that the evil BOD has provided more infpormation. We know that will not be enough thought for you.


They have answered some of the questions and they are certainly promising and reassuring answers but still not any details on the options if we vote yes. Still waiting for someone on the board to send any correspondence and open minutes we missed with them not having our email address. 
I haven't seen anything attacking the integrity. Just others like myself trying to get as much information as possible.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## bizaro86

alameda94501 said:


> Portfolio works because they internally subdivide their own weeks (purchased and annually converted) for the Portfolio members, not book on the (old or new) internal exchange. Portfolio will keep on rolling... just like in Aspen.



Does HPP have its own staff of housekeepers that come and clean in between their internally subdivided guests? Because I doubt the HOA is required to offer unlimited full housekeepings to owners.


----------



## alameda94501

bizaro86 said:


> Does HPP have its own staff of housekeepers that come and clean in between their internally subdivided guests? Because I doubt the HOA is required to offer unlimited full housekeepings to owners.



Not that I'm aware. You have a great point, but I think there's probably a disconnect between the top level Board and Developer machinations, and the general manager / housekeeping staff that preserve the pre-COVID daily housekeeping policies for Portfolio. Laborwise, it's probably manifesting as more waiting time for room turnover than actual increased costs for staff, but still.


----------



## Kal

bizaro86 said:


> Does HPP have its own staff of housekeepers that come and clean in between their internally subdivided guests? Because I doubt the HOA is required to offer unlimited full housekeepings to owners.


I would love to see the BOD impose a surcharge for the non-HRC stays less than 7 days.  As is, it ups the rate of unit interior deterioration and the additional house keeping cleaning services.


----------



## JanT

The "none of us want this..." was the board member's comment.  Maybe they mean the board as a whole doesn't really want this.  I don't know.

Yes, the transfer fee has always been a money grab and one of my biggest gripes with Hyatt. Marriott (and others presumably) all have transfer fees but nothing near as high as Hyatt. I agree - it takes virtually nothing to change a name on a unit/week, etc. 

There's no going back and unraveling all the ROFR actions, of course. Two bags of popcorn? It would be a couple of truckloads of popcorn. I would just like to know if the board knew Hyatt was illegally ROFRing weeks, WHY didn't they take action to put a stop to it??? Same with the supposed "estoppel" fee. Why didn't the BOD do something about that? If it's illegal in Florida, well.....it wouldn't be hard to put a stop to that with a little push from an attorney.

The whole thing is a freakin' mess!!!!



Kal said:


> I'm not sure of the "...none of us want this.." means?  My read is why do we have to deal with jerks who just want to gouge the owners and harm the legacy weeks owners.  The TRANSFER FEE has always been a money grab.  What's the level of effort to change the data set to show a different name to a unit-week? or add another unit week to an existing owner account?  And then raising the price from $500 to $650?  If I remember back to the dark ages, it may have been something like $75-$100.  I can only imagine what it would take to unravel all the ROFR actions!  That would be a TWO BAGS OF POPCORN EVENT.


----------



## dioxide45

JanT said:


> There's no going back and unraveling all the ROFR actions, of course. Two bags of popcorn? It would be a couple of truckloads of popcorn. I would just like to know if the board knew Hyatt was illegally ROFRing weeks, WHY didn't they take action to put a stop to it??? Same with the supposed "estoppel" fee. Why didn't the BOD do something about that? If it's illegal in Florida, well.....it wouldn't be hard to put a stop to that with a little push from an attorney.


I suspect they think it is illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. They would have to challenge it through litigation and I think perhaps even non-binding arbitration first. This all would cost the HOA a lot of money and then say goodbye to any decrease in fees by voting out HRC. I am sure to this point all issues of contention have just been a war of words without any actual measures being taken to prevent anything HRC has been doing. I suspect they looked at that lawsuite in Aspen and determined that perhaps, just perhaps, what Hyatt was doing is within the bounds of its agreement and rules of the condominium declaration.


----------



## Emerson

JanT said:


> Ok, a small update from my source who interestingly has become a bit less friendly as I have asked a couple of more questions.  I have been entirely professional with no hostility, actually thanking them several times for all the work they do on the board.  Before, my contacts emails were along the lines of, "Hi Jan, thanks for getting in touch.  I understand your concerns so let me give you the information you're looking for...."  Now, the last two emails have simply been my comments/questions quoted with their curt response written in red.  Literally, nothing else.  No "Hi Jan," no signature line or anything else.  Just very, VERY curt.  I'm sure they're up to their neck in owners asking for information and it sounds like they're getting tired of that.  Perhaps they are getting more pushback than they thought they would.  I'm not sure why they're surprised by that.  You can't just plop this big turd down on everyone and not expect a lot of questions.
> 
> Anyway, my first question was about what constituted a quorum in terms of ownership numbers and also, what percentage of that quorum had to vote "Yes" in order for the split from HRC to happen. They responded: "The statute calls for at least 50% of the units must vote and then 66% of those must vote in favor." I think it's actually 50% + 1 based on the other information that they sent out last night.
> 
> My next question was to ascertain what time and where the board meeting on the 14th of July was going to be held. They responded with this: "As it stands now the July 14th meeting is just a formality to record the results of the election." Formality or not, owners have a right to be at the meeting, so, it's interesting that they weren't more forthcoming with time and place.
> 
> Their final comment to me was this: "None of us want this however the situation requires action and a change is the easiest answer. Otherwise we will have to bring a suit against the management company to try to correct issues that they have caused through their documents. Further they are not allowed to exercise their first right of refusal and have not had that authority for four years. Also charging owners a $650.00 estoppel fee to sell is against Florida law. Hyatt believes because they are a big company they can bully the association that must not go unchallenged. If we change management companies a lot of these type issues go away." It's obvious to me based on comments here and elsewhere that some people DO want the split - mostly those that use their weeks every year, so the board member's assertion that no one wants this is not true.
> 
> This particular paragraph raised my eyebrows at bit. First, because there is an obvious implication that the owners will have to take legal action against Hyatt (again I call it Hyatt because that's the name on the resort but of course, it is MVW). Hyatt does charge a $650 transfer fee which is ridiculous (it used to be $500) but the board member calls it an "estoppel fee." There's a difference between a transfer fee and an "estoppel fee." If this is against the law in Florida, why hasn't the board pursued this aggressively previously? Also, stating the Hyatt has no legal right to exercise ROFR for the last 4 years but have done it anyway. Again, why hasn't the Board pursued resolving this previously? Maybe they have but, it doesn't appear that the BOD has taken any legal action previously against Hyatt to correct these issues, so I'm not sure why they're threatening this now. Scare tactics to get owners to vote "Yes" to split from HRC in order to prevent extensive legal fees passed onto the owners? Look, I don't know but I'm curious as to how Hyatt would have gone so unchecked on two things that are supposedly illegal. Big corporation or not, they should have been called out and dealt with on these two issues, if in fact, what was stated is true.
> 
> I'll go back to my original statement when this first came up here on TUG. I hate this kind of crap!!! It takes away from other things I need and want to be doing when I have to start researching legalities of documents, checking up on what the board has and hasn't done, etc. But, before I just stamp out 3 votes for "Yes," I'm going to give that serious thought. The undertone of the latest email from my contact gives me serious pause as to exactly what's moving in the background that I might not know about. So.....I'm holding my vote until I see what else I might uncover.


----------



## Emerson

Interesting, my source has also become less friendly and forthcoming since Sunday. Extreme pressure from the board? I was promised information about the executive board meeting so that we could have a clearer understanding of what really happened at the meeting. I was given the information and within an hour i was asked not to put it out. I agreed not to put it out because the source said that they would be making the information available to the ownership. Nothing has showed up yet. If nothing is revealed in the next couple days I will put the information out.


----------



## bradj

I'm not a SH owner. I have a confirmed reservation at SH for a 1 BR 4 day split week in March 2023. I prepaid my Hyatt Maintenance fee at my home resort and got on the request list to obtain it. What happens to that if the "YES" vote wins?
'


----------



## dioxide45

bradj said:


> I'm not a SH owner. I have a confirmed reservation at SH for a 1 BR 4 day split week in March 2023. I prepaid my Hyatt Maintenance fee at my home resort and got on the request list to obtain it. What happens to that if the "YES" vote wins?
> '


I would think nothing happens. You go on your trip in March 2023. In order for you to have booked that stay, one of two things had to have happened. You booked it from HPP inventory that HPP owns or a HSH owner made an HRC reservation somewhere else and it freed up that inventory for other club members (you) to book.


----------



## travelhacker

bradj said:


> I'm not a SH owner. I have a confirmed reservation at SH for a 1 BR 4 day split week in March 2023. I prepaid my Hyatt Maintenance fee at my home resort and got on the request list to obtain it. What happens to that if the "YES" vote wins?
> '


Per the CC&R's all existing reservations must be honored. Nothing will happen to that reservation, but future reservations would be impacted.


----------



## bizaro86

dioxide45 said:


> I suspect they think it is illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. They would have to challenge it through litigation and I think perhaps even non-binding arbitration first. This all would cost the HOA a lot of money and then say goodbye to any decrease in fees by voting out HRC. I am sure to this point all issues of contention have just been a war of words without any actual measures being taken to prevent anything HRC has been doing. I suspect they looked at that lawsuite in Aspen and determined that perhaps, just perhaps, what Hyatt was doing is within the bounds of its agreement and rules of the condominium declaration.



Just because the board thinks Hyatt has lost its ROFR doesn't necessarily mean it is a good decision to spend owner's money litigating that. It would probably require tracing the title of each ownership Hyatt had, and also litigation around the definitions of things like "available for sale" in the underlying documents. ROFR isn't such a big deal that its worth spending owner money on, imo. Better to spend that money building a hurricane reserve or on continuing updates/refurbishments.


----------



## bradj

travelhacker said:


> Per the CC&R's all existing reservations must be honored. Nothing will happen to that reservation, but future reservations would be impacted.


Is that an official and legal response?


----------



## travelhacker

bradj said:


> Is that an official and legal response?


Yes, it's written in the CC&R's.


----------



## Sapper

bradj said:


> I'm not a SH owner. I have a confirmed reservation at SH for a 1 BR 4 day split week in March 2023. I prepaid my Hyatt Maintenance fee at my home resort and got on the request list to obtain it. What happens to that if the "YES" vote wins?
> '



When this happened at Aspen, they said no new reservations after X date, all existing reservations were honored.


----------



## Emerson

dioxide45 said:


> I would think nothing happens. You go on your trip in March 2023. In order for you to have booked that stay, one of two things had to have happened. You booked it from HPP inventory that HPP owns or a HSH owner made an HRC reservation somewhere else and it freed up that inventory for other club members (you) to book.


----------



## Emerson

I wouldn’t be worried. This doesn’t have a snowballs chance in you know what of passing. Your friend


----------



## travelhacker

JanT said:


> This particular paragraph raised my eyebrows at bit. First, because there is an obvious implication that the owners will have to take legal action against Hyatt (again I call it Hyatt because that's the name on the resort but of course, it is MVW). Hyatt does charge a $650 transfer fee which is ridiculous (it used to be $500) but the board member calls it an "estoppel fee." There's a difference between a transfer fee and an "estoppel fee." If this is against the law in Florida, why hasn't the board pursued this aggressively previously? Also, stating the Hyatt has no legal right to exercise ROFR for the last 4 years but have done it anyway. Again, why hasn't the Board pursued resolving this previously? Maybe they have but, it doesn't appear that the BOD has taken any legal action previously against Hyatt to correct these issues, so I'm not sure why they're threatening this now. Scare tactics to get owners to vote "Yes" to split from HRC in order to prevent extensive legal fees passed onto the owners? Look, I don't know but I'm curious as to how Hyatt would have gone so unchecked on two things that are supposedly illegal. Big corporation or not, they should have been called out and dealt with on these two issues, if in fact, what was stated is true.


Just like you, there's a lot that raises my eyebrows in this post.

1) I can't think of ANY reason why it would be illegal to charge a transfer fee (and as you pointed out, it is not an estoppel fee). I do agree that the fee is a bit out of control, but Hilton charges a similar fee (It's around $500). 

2) I think the argument is pretty weak that Hyatt no longer has RoFR at Hyatt Sunset Harbor. Filing a lawsuit sounds like it would cost a whole lot more than sticking with Hyatt. According to an owner on Facebook, Aspen owners each paid $7500 for suing HRC (technically I think it was HVCC, but keeping it simple) and got a whole lot of nothing out of that.


----------



## Sapper

travelhacker said:


> Just like you, there's a lot that raises my eyebrows in this post.
> 
> 1) I can't think of ANY reason why it would be illegal to charge a transfer fee (and as you pointed out, it is not an estoppel fee). I do agree that the fee is a bit out of control, but Hilton charges a similar fee (It's around $500).
> 
> 2) I think the argument is pretty weak that Hyatt no longer has RoFR at Hyatt Sunset Harbor. Filing a lawsuit sounds like it would cost a whole lot more than sticking with Hyatt. According to an owner on Facebook, Aspen owners each paid $7500 for suing HRC (technically I think it was HVCC, but keeping it simple) and got a whole lot of nothing out of that.


1. Doubt it’s illegal. I don’t like it, but not illegal. 
2. I believe Hyatt’s defense would be that they have a willing customer.They are selling the unit to the HPP. Nothing says how many customers Hyatt needs to have, or that the customer needs to be human.  Again, not thrilled with the situation, but not illegal.


----------



## Tyler Texas

Emerson said:


> Interesting, my source has also become less friendly and forthcoming since Sunday. Extreme pressure from the board? I was promised information about the executive board meeting so that we could have a clearer understanding of what really happened at the meeting. I was given the information and within an hour i was asked not to put it out. I agreed not to put it out because the source said that they would be making the information available to the ownership. Nothing has showed up yet. If nothing is revealed in the next couple days I will put the information out.


Yesterday, I found a website that listed Sunset Harbor board of directors meeting minutes for all of 2021.  There were NO meeting minutes for 2022.  i have been exchanging emails with Don Heisler , who says he has been appointed by the board to handle all communications regarding leaving Hyatt.  He told me the board has been discussing this for two years, when I pointed out there was ZERO mention of it in any of the 2021meeting minutes, he ignored the subject in his reply. He also ignored the question about zero meeting minutes for 2022.  Do you know how access the board’s meeting minutes?  Today the site I was on yesterday said I was denied access.


----------



## AJCts411

And the plot thickens LOL..smear the BOD...thank you all of the non-owner shills for the input.


----------



## Kal

AJCts411 said:


> And the plot thickens LOL..smear the BOD...thank you all of the non-owner shills for the input.


Sounds like something Donna would say.


----------



## dioxide45

Why is the board not forthcoming with meeting minutes? It is an honest question...


----------



## Kal

One BOD member voted NO because she felt additional information was needed.  All other BODs voted YES.


----------



## Emerson

A Sunset Harbor just sent out an email stating that she voted against the Hyatt exit proposal.


----------



## SteveinHNL

I think it's definitely a fair question to ask if none of the discussions re dumping HRC were noted in the board minutes for the past 2 years.  But is this true?


----------



## Tyler Texas

Emerson said:


> Your wrong! Any votes taken by the board have to be put in the meeting minutes and made public. Florida law. The person that resigned was a board member. Again minutes would reveal that. Also the minutes will reveal who voted for and against. Seems you are the one speculating, “ maybe it was a Hyatt employee or maybe the person did not have the time”?. My posts are not an effort to support Hyatt but to find out what really happened!


is there a web site that board uses to publish BOD meeting minutes?


----------



## scootr5

Keep in mind meeting minutes are merely an outline of the meeting, not a transcript of everything said. They would typically have

Date, time and location.
Time the meeting was called to order and adjourned.
Names of attendees and absentees.
Corrections and amendments to previous meeting minutes.
Additions to agenda.
Status of quorum.
Motions taken or rescinded.

Is there anything called "New Business" or "Old Business on there? It could have been discussed during those sections.


----------



## dioxide45

scootr5 said:


> Keep in mind meeting minutes are merely an outline of the meeting, not a transcript of everything said. They would typically have
> 
> Date, time and location.
> Time the meeting was called to order and adjourned.
> Names of attendees and absentees.
> Corrections and amendments to previous meeting minutes.
> Additions to agenda.
> Status of quorum.
> Motions taken or rescinded.
> 
> Is there anything called "New Business" or "Old Business on there? It could have been discussed during those sections.


THey usually also outline specific topics that are brought up and action items that are assigned to individuals to take care of and bring back to the board.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> One BOD member voted NO because she felt additional information was needed.  All other BODs voted YES.


Actually there’s more to this story!
1. Earlier in the week of the executive board meeting Board member Bret H. Resigned from the board stating that he couldn’t be on such a dictatorial board. The day before the meeting he rescinded his resignation and showed up for the meeting. Question, was his attendance at the meeting legal? Was he reinstated? I understand that he voted yes. There is a question as to if he could cast a legal vote.
2. Not all other board members voted yes! Don. H. Did not vote as he was traveling.
3. Marilyn G. Voted no and she brought up very important points that needed to be answered prior to such an important undertaking. Incidentally, I believe, she has the most experience on the Sunset Harbor board . 
4. It has come to light that the individual that is advising the Sunset Harbor board and the person instrumental in the Aspen exit eff is being sued by the Aspen board for collecting 1.4 million dollars in a side deal with a lawyer on the Aspen deal.
5. No minutes of the meeting because they have been in a constant state of revision since the meeting.

This is a classic! DIRTY DEAL and COVERUP!


----------



## SteveinHNL

scootr5 said:


> Keep in mind meeting minutes are merely an outline of the meeting, not a transcript of everything said. They would typically have
> 
> Date, time and location.
> Time the meeting was called to order and adjourned.
> Names of attendees and absentees.
> Corrections and amendments to previous meeting minutes.
> Additions to agenda.
> Status of quorum.
> Motions taken or rescinded.
> 
> Is there anything called "New Business" or "Old Business on there? It could have been discussed during those sections.


Normally the minutes will also state the topics that were discussed during the meeting with some general description of the discussion but no real details.


----------



## alameda94501

Emerson said:


> 4. It has come to light that the individual that is advising the Sunset Harbor board and the person instrumental in the Aspen exit eff is being sued by the Aspen board for collecting 1.4 million dollars in a side deal with a lawyer on the Aspen deal.



Source, please.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> 3. Marilyn G. ...I believe, she has the most experience on the Sunset Harbor board .


A good guess, but wrong.  If you were a Sunset Harbor owner you would know the correct answer.


----------



## SteveinHNL

alameda94501 said:


> Source, please.


I think he might be his own source.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> A good guess, but wrong.  If you were a Sunset Harbor owner you would know the correct answer.


WOW!  That’s the part of the post that you have a problem with. I said I believe.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> WOW!  That’s the part of the post that you have a problem with. I said I believe.


So anyone listening to your babble has to figure out what's made up.  Best solution is to just ignore.


----------



## scootr5

dioxide45 said:


> THey usually also outline specific topics that are brought up and action items that are assigned to individuals to take care of and bring back to the board.



That is sometimes true. I was just trying to caution, as I have experience with people thinking that HOA minutes should read like a court transcript...


----------



## ivywag

Emerson said:


> Actually there’s more to this story!
> 1. Earlier in the week of the executive board meeting Board member Bret H. Resigned from the board stating that he couldn’t be on such a dictatorial board. The day before the meeting he rescinded his resignation and showed up for the meeting. Question, was his attendance at the meeting legal? Was he reinstated? I understand that he voted yes. There is a question as to if he could cast a legal vote.
> 2. Not all other board members voted yes! Don. H. Did not vote as he was traveling.
> 3. Marilyn G. Voted no and she brought up very important points that needed to be answered prior to such an important undertaking. Incidentally, I believe, she has the most experience on the Sunset Harbor board .
> 4. It has come to light that the individual that is advising the Sunset Harbor board and the person instrumental in the Aspen exit eff is being sued by the Aspen board for collecting 1.4 million dollars in a side deal with a lawyer on the Aspen deal.
> 5. No minutes of the meeting because they have been in a constant state of revision since the meeting.
> 
> This is a classic! DIRTY DEAL and COVERUP!


Emerson- Do you own at Sunset Harbor or just like to trade in there?  It seems that most of the negative posters don’t appear to be owners. Please don’t accuse others if you don’t have any skin in the game.  Please remember that Hyatt/Marriott changed the entire Club when they stopped building new resorts, created the HPP (that’s all they sell) and added the sub-par (except for Northstar) Welk properties.


----------



## dayooper

ivywag said:


> Emerson- Do you own at Sunset Harbor or just like to trade in there?  It seems that most of the negative posters don’t appear to be owners. Please don’t accuse others if you don’t have any skin in the game.  Please remember that Hyatt/Marriott changed the entire Club when they stopped building new resorts, created the HPP (that’s all they sell) and added the sub-par (except for Northstar) Welk properties.



From post #432 in this thread.



Emerson said:


> Yes, We don’t own at SH. However, when we purchased our first timeshare from Hyatt,we bought into a club. We have traded into Sunset Harbor for over 10 years and would like to continue to do so. Just the same as SH owners trade into our ownership at Windward or Sedona. If our wanting to continue to do that makes us a shill,GUILTY!


----------



## ivywag

dayooper said:


> From post #432 in this thread.


We bought into a Club, too.  However things have changed and our Club is now diluted with HPP folks and soon-to-be Welk.  We paid originally and now they want us to pay again for HPP so that we don’t lose our priority for reservations.  If only they had just made the Club that we all bought even better, none of this would have happened. We used to love the Hyatt program, but no more and we own 7 of them!!


----------



## ivywag

ivywag said:


> We bought into a Club, too.  However things have changed and our Club is now diluted with HPP folks and soon-to-be Welk.  We paid originally and now they want us to pay again for HPP so that we don’t lose our priority for reservations.  If only they had just made the Club that we all bought even better, none of this would have happened. We used to love the Hyatt program, but no more and we own 7 of them!!


By the way, that’s why we recently purchased our Sunset Harbor unit. We are figuring that we are better off to own the resort and week that we would like to use and not count on the diluted Club.


----------



## AJCts411

Kal said:


> So anyone listening to your babble has to figure out what's made up.  Best solution is to just ignore.


But it amuses us...the non owner shill.  Rumor is there are some on this site being paid to sway the vote towards no...


----------



## SueDonJ

AJCts411 said:


> But it amuses us...the non owner shill.  Rumor is there are some on this site being paid to sway the vote towards no...


Anytime there's an issue like this one happening at Sunset Harbor that can't help but divide owners, it's unavoidable that tempers will flare. It's also unavoidable that here on TUG you'll get input from a variety of people including owners at the resort as well as exchangers and even cash guests who have had access to the resort and want that access to continue. But you will also get input from TUGgers who take a particular interest in BOD activities and/or have a good understanding of what information in the governing docs might be applicable, and more importantly, how to focus the owners' attention on the information that will help them the most.

There is no TUG rule that says only owners are allowed to participate in these singular-resort discussions. There are TUG Rules that say "Be Courteous." As a longtime TUGger I have to say, this allegation that this site is being used by un-named people receiving compensation to sway the important vote facing Sunset Harbor owners is one of the most egregious slurs I've ever seen on this site. *If it's true*, then it's an issue which should be directed in a Private Message to the TUG Administrators, @TUGBrian and @Makai Guy, for them to make a determination about how they want to handle it. Just in case that hasn't been done, as a TUG moderator I am reporting the quoted post to call their attention to the allegation.


----------



## Emerson

alameda94501 said:


> Source, please.


My source is a member of the Sunset Harbor Board of Directors! Also, some SH directors want to dismiss this person!


----------



## JanT

Can you tell me where you found the BOD meeting minutes?  If you don't want to post it here, just PM me.  Thanks!



Tyler Texas said:


> Yesterday, I found a website that listed Sunset Harbor board of directors meeting minutes for all of 2021.  There were NO meeting minutes for 2022.  i have been exchanging emails with Don Heisler , who says he has been appointed by the board to handle all communications regarding leaving Hyatt.  He told me the board has been discussing this for two years, when I pointed out there was ZERO mention of it in any of the 2021meeting minutes, he ignored the subject in his reply. He also ignored the question about zero meeting minutes for 2022.  Do you know how access the board’s meeting minutes?  Today the site I was on yesterday said I was denied access.


----------



## JanT

First off, let me make sure everyone here understands I'm not being paid by anyone for my opinion.  I don't work for Marriott, I don't work for Hyatt, I'm not on the SH BOD.  I have been a member of TUG long before the 2005 that's indicated in my profile.  I'm from the days where I remember "Fern's Cafe" circa 1995.  Somehow when TUG switched over to the new format, my original membership date didn't transfer with it.  Just want to make all that clear up front.

I own 3 weeks at SH, which I overall enjoy going to, but I also like to go to other resorts within HRC and I like the flexibility to grab a significant trade in II if I want to. There are many owners who like to go to SH every year and that's it. That's their prerogative and none of my business. There are also multi-week owners that never go there and simply rent their weeks out.

I've mulled this potential split from Hyatt - the ramifications of severing the management agreement, leaving the HRC, and what that might bring. I've actually had a couple of sleepless nights because I'm troubled by what I'm perceiving as a bit of a rush to jam this vote through, and I'm concerned as to why there appears to be no negotiations having taken place before we got to this point.

There are some valid points made about the need to corral the management fee currently being charged by Hyatt and which is anticipated to go up to14% or more. That has to stop.

And there's some valid points about the $157 per week being charged. What does that $157 per week get owners? A membership in II essentially, which does provide the ability to book Getaways and some other minor perks. If an owner doesn't use II at all then the $157 is kind of a waste for them BUT it always leaves that possibility on the table should they ever decide they want to use II. It would actually be interesting to know if owners who say they use their week EVERY year and never exchange, ever utilize their II membership to grab getaway weeks. If so, then they are getting some benefit from the $157 fee. Where the issue is, is that Hyatt is charging $157 PER week. If you're a multiple week owner, it seems ridiculous that you're paying $157 on each of those weeks. I agree with that, although I'm charged that for each of my 3 weeks and honestly, I don't care. It's just a built-in cost to my vacation time. Just like all the other little fees Hyatt is charging. But, that's me and I don't expect anyone else to share that same sentiment.

I'm personally concerned about the state of the resort. As I stated in a previous post, we went to SH the week between Christmas and New Year's last year and I was VERY surprised at the dinginess, lack of maintenance done in the unit, etc. THAT's a much bigger concern for me than the generalized fees outside of maintenance fees. I don't like high maintenance fees but it's a choice I made when I bought my weeks at SH. It's Key West and everything is expensive there. But, if I'm going to pay high maintenance fees, I want that resort in tip-top shape. It should represent the quality I expect of the Hyatt/Marriott name. It didn't and that's a huge problem for me. I'd like to know exactly what has been going on with the maintenance of the resort and why it hasn't been updated. It certainly needs to be brought back to having Key West flair which it is sorely lacking. If I want brown and tan, I can go to the desert where the tones are much different. I have no problem with it in the desert but I've seen desert resorts that have more color than those units in SH. I would seriously like to know why the board has been unsuccessful in getting Hyatt squared away on this because Hyatt developed SH and the original units were very much in keeping with Key West style and flair. How did that get so off-track?

At this point, I still have grave concerns about stepping out of the management agreement with Hyatt. There are benefits to being linked with Hyatt, one of them being the cost of property insurance. If SH splits from Hyatt, the resort is going to have to get its own insurance and I have to believe the premiums for that will be significantly higher than what a large corporation like Hyatt is able to get. That could be a truly significant increase in cost and one that can't be ignored.

I also am concerned about employing an independent management company. While to many that sounds like a good idea, I see it absolutely fraught with potential problems. There are plenty of nightmare stories about resorts that split to independent management companies and the resort suffers greatly. They tend not to have a 10 year refurbish plan; instead, just dealing with a broken dishwasher, etc. as they come up. The units never really get that deep refurb that is needed and eventually just become so-so resorts at best. I'm not interested in paying a fortune in maintenance fees to own a so-so resort located in Key West. While I mean no disrespect to the SH BOD and I think they have had their challenges in dealing with Hyatt, I'm concerned about jumping from the frying pan into the fryer with an independent management company. Just not feeling the love for that.

At this point, Hyatt obviously knows what's going on - that there is a push to terminate the management agreement and for SH to leave the HRC. I'm sure this gives them a lot of concern - it's fairly evident based on the correspondence they sent to owners, as well as the scheduled webinar which will be no more than talking points they spout. There's no open mic planned for owners to ask questions or anything else. They'll spend their time rattling off how fantastic they are and all the great things they've done for the resort. I'm not interested in that crap at all. Save that and just show me action to get things resolved fairly.

Obviously, Hyatt doesn't want one of their remaining crown jewels to split from the HRC. That's a pretty big blow to them since Aspen also left and opens the door for other resorts to leave as well, pretty much putting HRC in demise. I think owners and the BOD can use this to our advantage and begin to negotiate with Hyatt to bring into line some of the concerns we have:

1. Stop the overcharging of $157 per week for multi-week owners who do nothing but use their weeks every year. That doesn't mean multi-week owners who "use" their weeks by renting them out. It means multi-week owners who park their butts at SH year in and year out.

2. Stop the exorbitant management fee increases.

3. Begin to make a downward adjustment of some of the line-item expenditure projections which have no specificity to them and are causing MF's to rise.

4. Get the resort refurbished and back to a place that FEELS and LOOKS like Key West.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. There's plenty more and others will be able to add to this. But, the owners and BOD are in the driver's seat right now. Hyatt is scared of losing SH - no doubt about it. Losing SH could put a dagger in the HPP and that is definitely not something they want or can afford. It's time to negotiate and see if there is any middle ground that can be reached. If not, then owners have a choice to make. But, if we're going to negotiate, the time for that is right now. Actually, it should have already happened. Hyatt has to understand, if they don't meet us in the middle, owners are most likely going to vote to terminate the management agreement and more importantly, take SH and run with it - out of their system and that's something they absolutely do not want.

Those are my late-night ramblings and it's all just my opinion. Now, I'm going to go collect my salary, which is in the form of a piece of biscotti and go to bed.

My hope is that somehow before we end up in a situation that is far worse than where we currently are, owners of SH can steer this to a more peaceful resolution. But, Hyatt/Marriott, if you're reading here and of course, you are - take note of this: your company is most likely in serious danger of losing one of the last remaining crown jewels of the HRC. Don't be stupid. Put forth some effort to meet owners and the BOD in the middle; maybe even further than the middle. It can be a win-win situation but you're going to have to put in some good faith effort and prove you're serious in making SH what it should be without the persistent financial gouging that's gone on. Otherwise, you can kiss SH good-bye.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> My source is a member of the Sunset Harbor Board of Directors! Also, some SH directors want to dismiss this person!


Now that you threw the BOD member under the bus, it's about time for you to come out from behind the curtain.  What's your name?  Is it your goal to disrupt the board.  Especially from somebody who is not even a Sunset Harbor owner.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> It would actually be interesting to know if owners who say they use their week EVERY year and never exchange, ever utilize their II membership to grab getaway weeks. If so, then they are getting some benefit from the $157 fee. Where the issue is, is that Hyatt is charging $157 PER week. If you're a multiple week owner, it seems ridiculous that you're paying $157 on each of those weeks.



The vast, vast majority of SH owners use what they own, I don't think anyone questions that. If I recall correctly, most of those owners own something else for trading. Not the vast majority. But enough that it isn't even an issue. 

So these people are paying for their trader week, and they're paying for their (multiple) SH weeks.


----------



## Kal

Carnival time


----------



## Kal

alameda94501 said:


> Source, please.


A very large bucket of MUD suitable for slinging.


----------



## bizaro86

JanT said:


> 1. Stop the overcharging of $157 per week for multi-week owners who do nothing but use their weeks every year. That doesn't mean multi-week owners who "use" their weeks by renting them out. It means multi-week owners who park their butts at SH year in and year out.
> 
> 2. Stop the exorbitant management fee increases.
> 
> 3. Begin to make a downward adjustment of some of the line-item expenditure projections which have no specificity to them and are causing MF's to rise.
> 
> 4. Get the resort refurbished and back to a place that FEELS and LOOKS like Key West.



I think the chances of getting any of these is infinitesimal. What will happen is some platitudes about working with the board and owners to proactively solve problems, and then either the owners will vote them out or not. 

But giving up any of 1/2/3 at Sunset Harbor sets a precedent for all their other resorts that they won't want to set.


----------



## RM@SH

AJCts411 said:


> But it amuses us...the non owner shill.  Rumor is there are some on this site being paid to sway the vote towards no...



Many of us feel with all your one-sided campaigning (shill) with no non-Hyatt options that you are being compensated by someone to sway the vote towards yes.  I can only hope the dictator on the board mentioned earlier and implied in at least one email does not have skin in this game.  With the President and VP reliving themselves from any responsibility in this action and one board member resigning, sure has to make us all think of the true intentions and who has what to gain personally.  You are getting desperate to start spreading rumors for your gain.  This thread has become quite ridiculous.


----------



## JanT

Yeah, I don't like throwing that member of the board under the bus.  Grossly unfair to them and it's going to make their remaining tenure on it, absolutely miserable.



Kal said:


> Now that you threw the BOD member under the bus, it's about time for you to come out from behind the curtain.  What's your name?  Is it your goal to disrupt the board.  Especially from somebody who is not even a Sunset Harbor owner.


----------



## JanT

Platitudes can't be accepted.  It has to be a hard, written plan with definitive steps to correct these and other issues.  Hyatt/Marriott doesn't want to do that?  Then I'll be the first person leading the charge to oust them.  They do NOT want to lose SH.



bizaro86 said:


> I think the chances of getting any of these is infinitesimal. What will happen is some platitudes about working with the board and owners to proactively solve problems, and then either the owners will vote them out or not.
> 
> But giving up any of 1/2/3 at Sunset Harbor sets a precedent for all their other resorts that they won't want to set.


----------



## AJCts411

SueDonJ said:


> Anytime there's an issue like this one happening at Sunset Harbor that can't help but divide owners, it's unavoidable that tempers will flare. It's also unavoidable that here on TUG you'll get input from a variety of people including owners at the resort as well as exchangers and even cash guests who have had access to the resort and want that access to continue. But you will also get input from TUGgers who take a particular interest in BOD activities and/or have a good understanding of what information in the governing docs might be applicable, and more importantly, how to focus the owners' attention on the information that will help them the most.
> 
> There is no TUG rule that says only owners are allowed to participate in these singular-resort discussions. There are TUG Rules that say "Be Courteous." As a longtime TUGger I have to say, this allegation that this site is being used by un-named people receiving compensation to sway the important vote facing Sunset Harbor owners is one of the most egregious slurs I've ever seen on this site. *If it's true*, then it's an issue which should be directed in a Private Message to the TUG Administrators, @TUGBrian and @Makai Guy, for them to make a determination about how they want to handle it. Just in case that hasn't been done, as a TUG moderator I am reporting the quoted post to call their attention to the allegation.



Read it carefully.  Clearly a humorus attempt to poke a little fun at the non-owner and newbie negativity..like smearing the BOD.  Doubt anyone thinks there is any founded allegation or truth to the comment.  Me thinks you protest too much.


----------



## AJCts411

RM@SH said:


> Many of us feel with all your one-sided campaigning (shill) with no non-Hyatt options that you are being compensated by someone to sway the vote towards yes.  I can only hope the dictator on the board mentioned earlier and implied in at least one email does not have skin in this game.  With the President and VP reliving themselves from any responsibility in this action and one board member resigning, sure has to make us all think of the true intentions and who has what to gain personally.  You are getting desperate to start spreading rumors for your gain.  This thread has become quite ridiculous.



Still I ask whats your point? The BOD passed the reoslution for this vote. The BOD recomends a yes vote. How does your shadoww casting oof doubt on this process have anything to do with the points, positives or negatives, of voting yes or not?   Owner 2 weeks for 6 & 5 years.  HUMOR>>>Been implanted by the remove Hyatt cabal for the last 4 years LOL.


----------



## Tyler Texas

JanT said:


> First off, let me make sure everyone here understands I'm not being paid by anyone for my opinion.  I don't work for Marriott, I don't work for Hyatt, I'm not on the SH BOD.  I have been a member of TUG long before the 2005 that's indicated in my profile.  I'm from the days where I remember "Fern's Cafe" circa 1995.  Somehow when TUG switched over to the new format, my original membership date didn't transfer with it.  Just want to make all that clear up front.
> 
> I own 3 weeks at SH, which I overall enjoy going to, but I also like to go to other resorts within HRC and I like the flexibility to grab a significant trade in II if I want to. There are many owners who like to go to SH every year and that's it. That's their prerogative and none of my business. There are also multi-week owners that never go there and simply rent their weeks out.
> 
> I've mulled this potential split from Hyatt - the ramifications of severing the management agreement, leaving the HRC, and what that might bring. I've actually had a couple of sleepless nights because I'm troubled by what I'm perceiving as a bit of a rush to jam this vote through, and I'm concerned as to why there appears to be no negotiations having taken place before we got to this point.
> 
> There are some valid points made about the need to corral the management fee currently being charged by Hyatt and which is anticipated to go up to14% or more. That has to stop.
> 
> And there's some valid points about the $157 per week being charged. What does that $157 per week get owners? A membership in II essentially, which does provide the ability to book Getaways and some other minor perks. If an owner doesn't use II at all then the $157 is kind of a waste for them BUT it always leaves that possibility on the table should they ever decide they want to use II. It would actually be interesting to know if owners who say they use their week EVERY year and never exchange, ever utilize their II membership to grab getaway weeks. If so, then they are getting some benefit from the $157 fee. Where the issue is, is that Hyatt is charging $157 PER week. If you're a multiple week owner, it seems ridiculous that you're paying $157 on each of those weeks. I agree with that, although I'm charged that for each of my 3 weeks and honestly, I don't care. It's just a built-in cost to my vacation time. Just like all the other little fees Hyatt is charging. But, that's me and I don't expect anyone else to share that same sentiment.
> 
> I'm personally concerned about the state of the resort. As I stated in a previous post, we went to SH the week between Christmas and New Year's last year and I was VERY surprised at the dinginess, lack of maintenance done in the unit, etc. THAT's a much bigger concern for me than the generalized fees outside of maintenance fees. I don't like high maintenance fees but it's a choice I made when I bought my weeks at SH. It's Key West and everything is expensive there. But, if I'm going to pay high maintenance fees, I want that resort in tip-top shape. It should represent the quality I expect of the Hyatt/Marriott name. It didn't and that's a huge problem for me. I'd like to know exactly what has been going on with the maintenance of the resort and why it hasn't been updated. It certainly needs to be brought back to having Key West flair which it is sorely lacking. If I want brown and tan, I can go to the desert where the tones are much different. I have no problem with it in the desert but I've seen desert resorts that have more color than those units in SH. I would seriously like to know why the board has been unsuccessful in getting Hyatt squared away on this because Hyatt developed SH and the original units were very much in keeping with Key West style and flair. How did that get so off-track?
> 
> At this point, I still have grave concerns about stepping out of the management agreement with Hyatt. There are benefits to being linked with Hyatt, one of them being the cost of property insurance. If SH splits from Hyatt, the resort is going to have to get its own insurance and I have to believe the premiums for that will be significantly higher than what a large corporation like Hyatt is able to get. That could be a truly significant increase in cost and one that can't be ignored.
> 
> I also am concerned about employing an independent management company. While to many that sounds like a good idea, I see it absolutely fraught with potential problems. There are plenty of nightmare stories about resorts that split to independent management companies and the resort suffers greatly. They tend not to have a 10 year refurbish plan; instead, just dealing with a broken dishwasher, etc. as they come up. The units never really get that deep refurb that is needed and eventually just become so-so resorts at best. I'm not interested in paying a fortune in maintenance fees to own a so-so resort located in Key West. While I mean no disrespect to the SH BOD and I think they have had their challenges in dealing with Hyatt, I'm concerned about jumping from the frying pan into the fryer with an independent management company. Just not feeling the love for that.
> 
> At this point, Hyatt obviously knows what's going on - that there is a push to terminate the management agreement and for SH to leave the HRC. I'm sure this gives them a lot of concern - it's fairly evident based on the correspondence they sent to owners, as well as the scheduled webinar which will be no more than talking points they spout. There's no open mic planned for owners to ask questions or anything else. They'll spend their time rattling off how fantastic they are and all the great things they've done for the resort. I'm not interested in that crap at all. Save that and just show me action to get things resolved fairly.
> 
> Obviously, Hyatt doesn't want one of their remaining crown jewels to split from the HRC. That's a pretty big blow to them since Aspen also left and opens the door for other resorts to leave as well, pretty much putting HRC in demise. I think owners and the BOD can use this to our advantage and begin to negotiate with Hyatt to bring into line some of the concerns we have:
> 
> 1. Stop the overcharging of $157 per week for multi-week owners who do nothing but use their weeks every year. That doesn't mean multi-week owners who "use" their weeks by renting them out. It means multi-week owners who park their butts at SH year in and year out.
> 
> 2. Stop the exorbitant management fee increases.
> 
> 3. Begin to make a downward adjustment of some of the line-item expenditure projections which have no specificity to them and are causing MF's to rise.
> 
> 4. Get the resort refurbished and back to a place that FEELS and LOOKS like Key West.
> 
> These are just a few things off the top of my head. There's plenty more and others will be able to add to this. But, the owners and BOD are in the driver's seat right now. Hyatt is scared of losing SH - no doubt about it. Losing SH could put a dagger in the HPP and that is definitely not something they want or can afford. It's time to negotiate and see if there is any middle ground that can be reached. If not, then owners have a choice to make. But, if we're going to negotiate, the time for that is right now. Actually, it should have already happened. Hyatt has to understand, if they don't meet us in the middle, owners are most likely going to vote to terminate the management agreement and more importantly, take SH and run with it - out of their system and that's something they absolutely do not want.
> 
> Those are my late-night ramblings and it's all just my opinion. Now, I'm going to go collect my salary, which is in the form of a piece of biscotti and go to bed.
> 
> My hope is that somehow before we end up in a situation that is far worse than where we currently are, owners of SH can steer this to a more peaceful resolution. But, Hyatt/Marriott, if you're reading here and of course, you are - take note of this: your company is most likely in serious danger of losing one of the last remaining crown jewels of the HRC. Don't be stupid. Put forth some effort to meet owners and the BOD in the middle; maybe even further than the middle. It can be a win-win situation but you're going to have to put in some good faith effort and prove you're serious in making SH what it should be without the persistent financial gouging that's gone on. Otherwise, you can kiss SH good-bye.


Very well said, you capture our position completely!  I learned yesterday that owners have to request copies of board meetings via email from the resort manager.  I wrote an email to the entire board that we (owners) need more transparency and a plan that has more substance than the fact they don’t like the fees and don’t use the exchange.  I suggested the BOD meeting minutes be posted to the owners web site.  I requested and read all the board meeting minutes from 2020 and 2021.  They met in April in regular session and again in May in a closed session.  They still have not approved the April minutes so they are not available..  Hard to believe they woke up in May and decided they need to propose this.  Why weren’t they using Jan-April to formulate a better course of action- like negotiating with Hyatt?  Don Heisler wrote me a email stating the board had been discussing this action for the last two years- in reading the minutes back two years the minutes DO NOT reflect this.


----------



## Tyler Texas

AJCts411 said:


> Still I ask whats your point? The BOD passed the reoslution for this vote. The BOD recomends a yes vote. How does your shadoww casting oof doubt on this process have anything to do with the points, positives or negatives, of voting yes or not?   Owner 2 weeks for 6 & 5 years.  HUMOR>>>Been implanted by the remove Hyatt cabal for the last 4 years LOL.


The board vote was not unanimous


----------



## dioxide45

JanT said:


> 1. Stop the overcharging of $157 per week for multi-week owners who do nothing but use their weeks every year. That doesn't mean multi-week owners who "use" their weeks by renting them out. It means multi-week owners who park their butts at SH year in and year out.
> 
> 2. Stop the exorbitant management fee increases.
> 
> 3. Begin to make a downward adjustment of some of the line-item expenditure projections which have no specificity to them and are causing MF's to rise.
> 
> 4. Get the resort refurbished and back to a place that FEELS and LOOKS like Key West.


Certainly operating a resort in such a manner will incur costs. I recall something about a landscaping cost that was shared between the three Key West properties and when the board pushed back, HRC was able to get the resort out from that combined contract and get a cheaper one. But at what cost? Are they receiving the same services for the lower cost. Usually you get what you pay for but most people just see the number.

The $157 (+13%) club fee per week owned is rather egregious. There should be some tiered structure. The problem with Hyatt though is how they have built these fees into the annual budgets at each resort. They don't work the same as Marriott or Vistana were it is a separately billed line item. I suppose they could figure out a way to break it out. Of course any change to that fee structure will result in a loss of revenue for MVW. If they are trying to position HRC to put it up for sale, reducing revenue isn't a way to make it look more attractive and garner top dollar. 

Af for #4, Marriott is big on 10 year refurbishment cycles and it sounds like the property is certainly due for one. I would expect they already have most of the reserves built up to cover this. So whether they leave or stay, I would expect a full refurb. The question is, long term, does the board move to more of a fix it as it breaks model that many independant properties have. This very well could be the last full refurbishment.


----------



## RM@SH

AJCts411 said:


> Still I ask whats your point? The BOD passed the reoslution for this vote. The BOD recomends a yes vote. How does your shadoww casting oof doubt on this process have anything to do with the points, positives or negatives, of voting yes or not? Owner 2 weeks for 6 & 5 years. HUMOR>>>Been implanted by the remove Hyatt cabal for the last 4 years LOL.


The board vote is quite suspicious as facts are coming out. Appears there is a strong handed member. 1 resigned, one voted no and one has relieved himself from all respinsiibilities of this process. Thats 3 of the 5. As you can see as the facts come out, owners are tuning to no votes without more information and the questionable board process. As much as I wanted to vote yes, vote is a difinitive no and I suggest others vote the same until some transparency is given to this process.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## JanT

Ok, wait....a board member has relieved himself from all responsibilities of this process??  Which board member?  And the one that resigned, rescinded their  resignation so, they are still on the board.  Someone is questioning the validity of that action and the question I would have is, did the BOD accept that person's  resignation and then reinstate them back on the board?  Or did the person rescind their resignation before the BOD accepted it?  Either way, I'm not sure I have any heartburn with it.  Tempers flare and things are said and done.  Someone quits, then realizes they didn't really want to quit - they were just pissed off.  So, I don't really care about how that part went down.

If there's a BOD member who has relieved themselves from all responsibilities of this process.....well.....that's a concern.  They don't get to do that.  AS a member of the BOD, they're responsible to act accordingly.  They might vote no on something but they still aren't absolved of their responsibilities.  If they feel that adamant about voting no, maybe they should be in contact with Hyatt and trying to resolve some of this.



RM@SH said:


> The board vote is quite suspicious as facts are coming out. Appears there is a strong handed member. 1 resigned, one voted no and one has relieved himself from all respinsiibilities of this process. Thats 3 of the 5. As you can see as the facts come out, owners are tuning to no votes without more information and the questionable board process. As much as I wanted to vote yes, vote is a difinitive no and I suggest others vote the same until some transparency is given to this process.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## JanT

dioxide,

Yes, the $157 club fee per week owned is egregious. There absolutely should be some tiered structure. Hyatt has gotten away with this because they've had control, much like developers do for a long, long time.

Yes, the BOD was able to get SH out from under that landscaping cost combined contract. I don't know the specifics regarding if they're getting the same services for the cheaper cost. It's a good question.

I can't figure out what Hyatt has been doing in terms of refurbishment of SH through the years. We had not been back to the property for many years actually. Life circumstances just kept us out of the loop of going there. We owned one week there up until last year when we acquired two additional weeks. This past year we were FINALLY able to get back there and boy, was I shocked. WTH had happened? The Key West vibe had been sucked out of the place. The tile flooring in the unit was the exact same tile that was in there 28 years before when we bought our original week. I believe there is currently a $3M renovation scheduled to begin next year (I'm not certain on the year but I think it's next year). and as you suggested, it could be the last major refurb if the resort moves to an independent company. Again, I'm not interested in paying high MF's for a so-so resort. Even right now, that's what I've got on my hands. It's a great location but it needs a serious refurb to bring it up to the quality I would expect for the Hyatt/Marriott name.



dioxide45 said:


> Certainly operating a resort in such a manner will incur costs. I recall something about a landscaping cost that was shared between the three Key West properties and when the board pushed back, HRC was able to get the resort out from that combined contract and get a cheaper one. But at what cost? Are they receiving the same services for the lower cost. Usually you get what you pay for but most people just see the number.
> 
> The $157 (+13%) club fee per week owned is rather egregious. There should be some tiered structure. The problem with Hyatt though is how they have built these fees into the annual budgets at each resort. They don't work the same as Marriott or Vistana were it is a separately billed line item. I suppose they could figure out a way to break it out. Of course any change to that fee structure will result in a loss of revenue for MVW. If they are trying to position HRC to put it up for sale, reducing revenue isn't a way to make it look more attractive and garner top dollar.
> 
> Af for #4, Marriott is big on 10 year refurbishment cycles and it sounds like the property is certainly due for one. I would expect they already have most of the reserves built up to cover this. So whether they leave or stay, I would expect a full refurb. The question is, long term, does the board move to more of a fix it as it breaks model that many independant properties have. This very well could be the last full refurbishment.


----------



## JanT

ScoopKona,

I think there should be a structured fee based on what owner's own. That would be the best solution. Hyatt is using the fee as a money grab and I don't like it. I've just accepted it, up until now.  Something has to change there.



ScoopKona said:


> The vast, vast majority of SH owners use what they own, I don't think anyone questions that. If I recall correctly, most of those owners own something else for trading. Not the vast majority. But enough that it isn't even an issue.
> 
> So these people are paying for their trader week, and they're paying for their (multiple) SH weeks.


----------



## dioxide45

These club fees where every owner pays the fee is getting to be pretty standard for timeshare brands. All Vistana owners pay the VSN fee (unless they own resale voluntary). All enrolled Marriott owners pay a club fee. All Hilton owners pay a club fee. Even if they never exchange out, use RCI/II or even use their home resort week every single year. The only main issue with HRC is that it is charged for every week owned. Certainly something like $157 for the first week and $100 for the second and $0 for additional weeks would put it more inline with the other brands.


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> Ok, wait....a board member has relieved himself from all responsibilities of this process??  Which board member?  And the one that resigned, rescinded their  resignation so, they are still on the board.  Someone is questioning the validity of that action and the question I would have is, did the BOD accept that person's  resignation and then reinstate them back on the board?  Or did the person rescind their resignation before the BOD accepted it?  Either way, I'm not sure I have any heartburn with it.  Tempers flare and things are said and done.  Someone quits, then realizes they didn't really want to quit - they were just pissed off.  So, I don't really care about how that part went down.
> 
> If there's a BOD member who has relieved themselves from all responsibilities of this process.....well.....that's a concern.  They don't get to do that.  AS a member of the BOD, they're responsible to act accordingly.  They might vote no on something but they still aren't absolved of their responsibilities.  If they feel that adamant about voting no, maybe they should be in contact with Hyatt and trying to resolve some of this.


All this smearing of the BOD has to STOP.  We don't need to dwell on how the sausage is being made.  One BOD member wanting to take more time to think about it is the basis of one NO vote.  The BOD outcome is to place the vote with the owners to make the decision on moving forward.  A single NO vote should not inspire mud slinging from people who are not HSH owners.

Personally, I think the BOD is insulating themselves from all the blow back when the resort continues to be negatively impacted by the Portfolio Motel 6 usage of the resort AND the huge maintenance fee increases in November.  It's just an "I told you so" situation.

Good grief folks, this is a 30 year old property in a marine environment.


----------



## AJCts411

*HRC* posting for new *GM at Highlands Inn* and *Sunset Harbor *amongst 190 open positions.   Note job description denotes *Marriott brand not Hyatt.

Job Description
Relocation Level 4 with Home Purchase*
Functions as the primary strategic business leader of the property with responsibility for all aspects of the operation, including guest and employee satisfaction, human resources, financial performance, ancillary sales and revenue generation. Ensures implementation of the *Marriott Vacation Club brand* service strategy and brand initiatives with the objective of meeting or exceeding guest expectations and increased profitability. Holds property leadership team accountable for strategy execution, and guides their individual professional development. Ensures the objectives and goals of *Marriott Vacation Club, Condominium Owner Boards (COB) and [Trust owners?] *work together to achieve brand positioning and success. Builds owner loyalty through proactive communication, setting and managing expectations and delivering solid business results. Partners with the site process team (Project Director-Sales and Construction Manager), if applicable, to maximize site customer and associate satisfaction and profitability. *Represents Marriott Vacation Club brand values in all leadership actions.*


----------



## ScoopKona

Ha!

Marriott isn't performing those duties. Go fire yourselves, gentlemen.


----------



## JanT

Kal,

I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me but just in case. I am not smearing the BOD and I absolutely am not condoning anyone who is doing that. In fact, I'm pretty upset with some of the back and forth that's gone on here with a lot of mud slinging at the BOD. That is a thankless job and we should all be grateful anyone is willing to even serve on the board - especially in today's environment. So, I personally, would like to see any references to shady dealings by the BOD stop - just please stop!!! I will repeat that I don't believe the BOD is doing anything nefarious behind the scenes and I don't think anyone should be hinting that they are. If someone has direct knowledge of something shady, illegal, or whatever going on by the BOD, then please, deal with that accordingly. But, please stop with the insinuations, baseless accusations, etc. I don't care how long you've been a member on TUG. That is not directed at you, Kal. That is directed at the person who continues to malign the BOD, which serves no purpose.

You are correct, the BOD job was to put the vote out to the owners which is what they did. Here's the sticking point for me - it was premature. Just because there has been discussion among owners who have requested to oust Hyatt and leave HRC doesn't mean they didn't have to do their homework. The presentation of the vote, while presented with some information, didn't include a lot of other important information. There has been no mention of just exactly what or even a projected cost savings will be (beyond the cursed $157 per week fee) by splitting from Hyatt management. There's been no information provided about other management companies that they have pursued and if one of those are selected what the fees will be for that. There has been no information on what the cost will be to procure insurance outside of Hyatt. No mention of what future plans are for renovation, refurbishment, etc. There simply seems to be a focus on "Hyatt/Marriott is bad, they've made things difficult for us, we don't like the $157 per week fee, and we want them out." There simply is not enough solid information to convince owners to vote, "Yes."

Your comment about SH being a 30 year old property in a marine area is valid. But, it also hammers home my point that the resort needs to have continual care and "feeding" so to speak. Mother nature is harsh in tropical environments as you well know. SH needs continual monitoring for deterioration and it needs continual monitoring for just general upkeep. I don't believe that's been happening and I STILL want to know why there has been no refurbishment that it needs - badly. How did it get so far off-track from its inception of Key West? I had been unable to visit the resort for many years due to life circumstances and I can tell you when we did get back there last year, holy cow was I surprised. I want to see it refurbished and returned to the vibrant Key West style. I'd like to know who is best going to accomplish this.  So, I'm going to ask questions.




Kal said:


> All this smearing of the BOD has to STOP.  We don't need to dwell on how the sausage is being made.  One BOD member wanting to take more time to think about it is the basis of one NO vote.  The BOD outcome is to place the vote with the owners to make the decision on moving forward.  A single NO vote should not inspire mud slinging from people who are not HSH owners.
> 
> Personally, I think the BOD is insulating themselves from all the blow back when the resort continues to be negatively impacted by the Portfolio Motel 6 usage of the resort AND the huge maintenance fee increases in November.  It's just an "I told you so" situation.
> 
> Good grief folks, this is a 30 year old property in a marine environment.





Kal said:


> All this smearing of the BOD has to STOP.  We don't need to dwell on how the sausage is being made.  One BOD member wanting to take more time to think about it is the basis of one NO vote.  The BOD outcome is to place the vote with the owners to make the decision on moving forward.  A single NO vote should not inspire mud slinging from people who are not HSH owners.
> 
> Personally, I think the BOD is insulating themselves from all the blow back when the resort continues to be negatively impacted by the Portfolio Motel 6 usage of the resort AND the huge maintenance fee increases in November.  It's just an "I told you so" situation.
> 
> Good grief folks, this is a 30 year old property in a marine environment.


----------



## JanT

LoL



ScoopKona said:


> Ha!
> 
> Marriott isn't performing those duties. Go fire yourselves, gentlemen.


----------



## JanT

I am going to try to make this my last post about this whole mess.  My personal feeling (as I posted in my response to Kal) is that the vote was put out to owners prematurely.  Not enough detailed specifics were provided, and I think that's going to shoot the BOD in the foot.  I understand their reasoning but ultimately, it could cost them.

I'd like to see the BOD call a halt to this vote. They can do that legally. Do some homework, get some verifiable, at least semi-solid quotes from other management companies, find out about cost of insurance, give some information about refurbishment costs and timeline, projected cost savings, etc., and get that out to owners ASAP to review and help them make a more informed decision. But, put a halt to this vote right now and they might have a better chance of getting what they want.

I'd also like to see the BOD and Hyatt enter into negotiations immediately to put some good faith effort forward in trying to resolve some of the issues at hand. Again, Hyatt does NOT want to lose SH from their portfolio of properties. It truly is one of the crown jewels in their system (one-of-a-kind) and losing that simply starts the domino effect. It might take years, but eventually there will be nothing left in the HRC. Losing SH would be disastrous for Hyatt. So, the owners have some leverage, and we should use that to accomplish the things that are deemed important. Hyatt is no longer in the driver's seat here - the owners are. Let's use that to our advantage for crying out loud. There are solutions to this and as an owner at SH, I expect the BOD and Hyatt to work together to make SH the best that it can be. Right now, it's not and I'm pissed about that.


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> dioxide,
> 
> Yes, the $157 club fee per week owned is egregious. There absolutely should be some tiered structure. Hyatt has gotten away with this because they've had control, much like developers do for a long, long time.
> 
> Yes, the BOD was able to get SH out from under that landscaping cost combined contract. I don't know the specifics regarding if they're getting the same services for the cheaper cost. It's a good question.
> 
> I can't figure out what Hyatt has been doing in terms of refurbishment of SH through the years. We had not been back to the property for many years actually. Life circumstances just kept us out of the loop of going there. We owned one week there up until last year when we acquired two additional weeks. This past year we were FINALLY able to get back there and boy, was I shocked. WTH had happened? The Key West vibe had been sucked out of the place. The tile flooring in the unit was the exact same tile that was in there 28 years before when we bought our original week. I believe there is currently a $3M renovation scheduled to begin next year (I'm not certain on the year but I think it's next year). and as you suggested, it could be the last major refurb if the resort moves to an independent company. Again, I'm not interested in paying high MF's for a so-so resort. Even right now, that's what I've got on my hands. It's a great location but it needs a serious refurb to bring it up to the quality I would expect for the Hyatt/Marriott name.


I am in complete agreement. We have been lucky enough to trade in to Sunset Harbor for more than 15 years before this year when we bought a Sunset unit to use.  We are owners of 6 other units in CA and NV and have traded for most of the other resorts. Each resort has its unique challenges.  We, too, have wondered about the condition of the units.  The grounds and location are fabulous, but the units themselves are sub-par with the rest of the Club. Of course, some things can’t be fixed—laundry in units, etc.  However, the units themselves have not been kept up to the standards that we expect.  You’re right on.  The floors are gross.  We always figured that the ownership there didn’t mind because most bought in early on and just kind of liked what was already there and were unwilling to spend the money to make it a first class resort—much like a family not seeing that their familiar surroundings are terribly outdated.  I suppose where I’m going with this is that the property has not been maintained even under the Hyatt umbrella and there are no guarantees that it will get better even if we keep them.  On the other hand, if we don’t keep them, will the standards erode even further?


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> Kal,
> 
> I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me but just in case. I am not smearing the BOD and I absolutely am not condoning anyone who is doing that. In fact, I'm pretty upset with some of the back and forth that's gone on here with a lot of mud slinging at the BOD. That is a thankless job and we should all be grateful anyone is willing to even serve on the board - especially in today's environment. So, I personally, would like to see any references to shady dealings by the BOD stop - just please stop!!! I will repeat that I don't believe the BOD is doing anything nefarious behind the scenes and I don't think anyone should be hinting that they are. If someone has direct knowledge of something shady, illegal, or whatever going on by the BOD, then please, deal with that accordingly. But, please stop with the insinuations, baseless accusations, etc. I don't care how long you've been a member on TUG. That is not directed at you, Kal. That is directed at the person who continues to malign the BOD, which serves no purpose....


JanT - Definitely, I am NOT directing my comment to you.  It's just a matter of the TUG structure of this commentary on how to respond in space.  I have my own thoughts about the source of mud slinging, but that's another topic.

We agree there is a serious problem with the maintenance and costs at Sunset Harbor.  When I purchased HSH in 2003, it seemed so special.  Then over decades I could see the deterioration.  An example is the wooden deck/walkways where there was a significant risk of getting splinters in our feet just by walking on those surfaces.  Why would Hyatt let it go to that extent??  I could go on and on about Hyatt's failing maintenance and upkeep, but I digress.  The issue today is "owners, do you want to keep paying increasing costs to Marriott while watching them pocket the money?"  We can engage in an unending hand-wringing dialog about what's next around the corner.  If any owner is satisfied with Marriott as the resort manager, I can't imagine they are fully cognizant of the issues.  The issue of the HRC exchange system, is indeed a major topic.  IMHO, the ability to get reasonable access to booking HSH units is adversely impacted by Portfolio and will continue to degrade.  I trust the BOD will develop a workable solution to exchange and selecting a quality Resort Manager.

Before engaging into a detailed program of selection, the BOD is simply saying: "owners, tell us what direction we should take?"  Based on the dialog here, I would not want the BOD to drill down into replacement parts in a matter of 4-5 weeks.  If the owners say NO, that's the way it goes and let's investigate the "Deck Chair Conspiracy on the Titanic".


----------



## GTLINZ

"Send lawyers, guns and money" - Warren Zevon


----------



## dioxide45

I was hoping someone would ask about the Hyatt Sunset Harbor issue in the Investor Day webstream today. But it is all just a bunch of investors, none of them probably even own the product.


----------



## jabberwocky

JanT said:


> I'd like to see the BOD call a halt to this vote. They can do that legally. Do some homework, get some verifiable, at least semi-solid quotes from other management companies, find out about cost of insurance, give some information about refurbishment costs and timeline, projected cost savings, etc., and get that out to owners ASAP to review and help them make a more informed decision. But, put a halt to this vote right now and they might have a better chance of getting what they want.


@JanT - you seem to be hung up on the idea that they don’t have quotes from other companies to take over the management contract.

This is not surprising- no reputable management company would put out a quote for something of this size when there isn’t a formal RFP in place, and the BOD likely can’t ask for an RFP with an existing management agreement in place.

This isn’t like getting a quote to have someone cut your lawn or fix your roof. There is a lot more. If I was a property manager, there is no way I would want to give a quote on this without a formal RFP and knowing that the contract was legitimately up for bid. Otherwise I would just just view myself as a negotiating tool.

Point is that if you are requiring competing quotes before making a decision, you will never be able to vote yes. Boards always face uncertainty and not enough information. It’s a risk both they and the owners have to consider.


----------



## SteveinHNL

jabberwocky said:


> @JanT - you seem to be hung up on the idea that they don’t have quotes from other companies to take over the management contract.
> 
> This is not surprising- no reputable management company would put out a quote for something of this size when there isn’t a formal RFP in place, and the BOD likely can’t ask for an RFP with an existing management agreement in place.
> 
> This isn’t like getting a quote to have someone cut your lawn or fix your roof. There is a lot more. If I was a property manager, there is no way I would want to give a quote on this without a formal RFP and knowing that the contract was legitimately up for bid. Otherwise I would just just view myself as a negotiating tool.
> 
> Point is that if you are requiring competing quotes before making a decision, you will never be able to vote yes. Boards always face uncertainty and not enough information. It’s a risk both they and the owners have to consider.


There must be some way for them to do an educated modeling of costs though.


----------



## jabberwocky

SteveinHNL said:


> There must be some way for them to do an educated modeling of costs though.


Of course. The best way would be comparable contracts for resorts in near proximity. I would be shocked if the board members would not have had informal discussions with the boards of those other resorts like the Galleon. That would have been one of the first things I would have done.

The problem really comes down to board liability and what they can say in promoting this. If they give an estimate at a certain number and the actual comes in higher (due to inflation, change in scope or just errors etc.) they have potentially opened themselves up to liability if they can’t show there was a good process in place to determine the value of the estimate.

One way around this liability problem would be to get a third party opinion on estimated cost savings (pay enough and you can find a consultant to advise on anything). Downside to this would be the incremental expense and is likely not worth it in this case (IMO).

Trust me, I spend enough time with people who sit on BOD to know how sensitive they are too legal liability. Part of my job is doing professional development for directors and CEOs to help them create more effective boards (did I mention I love my job most days!)


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> Yes, We don’t own at SH. However, when we purchased our first timeshare from Hyatt,we bought into a club. We have traded into Sunset Harbor for over 10 years and would like to continue to do so. Just the same as SH owners trade into our ownership at Windward or Sedona. If our wanting to continue to do that makes us a shill,GUILTY!


Agreed, I  bought into a Hyatt resort (including all the benefits thereof) for each and every timeshare purchase (including SH).
I would have NEVER purchased at an independent resort. 
Kai and a few of his buddies aren't really interested in discussing what life after a Hyatt exit would look because the BOD has only speculated,  but hasn't completed the due diligence needed to fully inform the owners. 
Kai and his buddies simply resort to name-calling,  "shill" accusations,  and disparaging remarks in lieu of constructive comments that are fact based (and not speculative).
I, for one,  have dismissed their posts as irrelevant.


----------



## INCHWORM

SueDonJ said:


> Anytime there's an issue like this one happening at Sunset Harbor that can't help but divide owners, it's unavoidable that tempers will flare. It's also unavoidable that here on TUG you'll get input from a variety of people including owners at the resort as well as exchangers and even cash guests who have had access to the resort and want that access to continue. But you will also get input from TUGgers who take a particular interest in BOD activities and/or have a good understanding of what information in the governing docs might be applicable, and more importantly, how to focus the owners' attention on the information that will help them the most.
> 
> There is no TUG rule that says only owners are allowed to participate in these singular-resort discussions. There are TUG Rules that say "Be Courteous." As a longtime TUGger I have to say, this allegation that this site is being used by un-named people receiving compensation to sway the important vote facing Sunset Harbor owners is one of the most egregious slurs I've ever seen on this site. *If it's true*, then it's an issue which should be directed in a Private Message to the TUG Administrators, @TUGBrian and @Makai Guy, for them to make a determination about how they want to handle it. Just in case that hasn't been done, as a TUG moderator I am reporting the quoted post to call their attention to the allegation.


Thank you.
I am fed up with being referred to as a shill, corporate insider,  etc etc simply because I  enjoy all my HRC properties including SH and  maximize my benefits within HRC, II, and WOH.  I am fed up with the discourse that comes from those who only offer bullying and disparaging personal comments against those who voted NO and wish to share their reasons for doing so!


----------



## Lingber

Email today from HRC.

They have very different owner usage numbers from what has been discussed here and on Facebook. Claims were made that owner usage was around 80%. HRC says the number from 2018-2021 is 38%.


----------



## Emerson

Lingber said:


> Email today from HRC.
> 
> They have very different owner usage numbers from what has been discussed here and on Facebook. Claims were made that owner usage was around 80%. HRC says the number from 2018-2021 is 38%.


You are exactly right! The hrpp usage at Sunset Harbor is in the high 30% area. It is among the higher Hyatt properties.


----------



## IslandTime

We are owners who always stay at HSH, but we don't always stay during the week we own. So in our case "owner usage" doesn't necessarily mean using the week and unit we own. We book the time that suits us best.


----------



## bizaro86

Lingber said:


> Email today from HRC.
> 
> They have very different owner usage numbers from what has been discussed here and on Facebook. Claims were made that owner usage was around 80%. HRC says the number from 2018-2021 is 38%.



Probably 2020 and 2021 had very different usage patterns than normal due to covid.


----------



## JanT

jabberwocky,

No, I'm not hung up on the idea the board doesn't have quotes from other companies to take over the management contract. I'm hung up on the lack of information overall about what the BOD sees for SH moving forward if Hyatt is removed from the picture. There has been nothing offered up that gives owners even a glimpse of how life at SH would be if owners vote in the affirmative to dump Hyatt. It's basically been "We don't like Hyatt and we want to get rid of them."

The lack of financial projection of savings by dumping Hyatt is at this point an unknown and not one I'm comfortable with. I've been around the business world for a long time (well, I'm retired now but worked 35+ years in the business world). I don't expect that any management company would put out a quote without an official RFP. But, I do believe the BOD could be doing some research and developing some modeling that would allow them some insight into what the potential costs of other management companies would be. While there would be no hard numbers and no guarantee, at least they would be able to give owners some idea of what the savings would (or wouldn't be). Of course, that would have to be couched in projections and presented that way to owners but at least there would be SOME information for owners to make a determination if they want to vote "Yes" or "No." Owners are worried about the financial ramifications of leaving Hyatt as well as the lack of opportunity to exchange into other Hyatt resorts, etc.

The BOD must have some idea of what they see for SH in the future; how much they think they're going to save owners. They should have a vision for moving forward beyond the "We strongly dislike Hyatt/Marriott and we want them out of the way because they've been difficult to deal with." From where I stand, that is NOT a reason to move away from Hyatt at this time. I don't like all the price gouging either but I have no idea what a new management company might do. And there certainly are enough horror stories out there where independent management companies have run a timeshare into the ground. I am not going to pay close to $6000.00 a year for my weeks at SH only to have an independent management company beat it down until it's just another so-so resort. I'd like Hyatt to do the right thing and step up and fix the things that need to be fixed.

Again, I'd like to see Hyatt and the SH BOD get together and begin negotiations to come to solid, written, and agreed upon solutions.  Hyatt can do this now or they can watch HRC slowly dissipate over time.  More and more of their resorts are going to bail out.  They cannot move quick enough to gain control of the voting at SH.  They can make the changes necessary, meet the owners and the BOD halfway (or more) right now or watch SH slip right out of their hands.  The BOD might not get the result they want from this current vote (which is why I think they should call it off) but eventually owners are going to have enough of Hyatt's price gouging and lack of action to update the resort and they're going to get rid of Hyatt.  It would benefit everyone if the BOD and Hyatt would enter negotiations NOW.



jabberwocky said:


> @JanT - you seem to be hung up on the idea that they don’t have quotes from other companies to take over the management contract.
> 
> This is not surprising- no reputable management company would put out a quote for something of this size when there isn’t a formal RFP in place, and the BOD likely can’t ask for an RFP with an existing management agreement in place.
> 
> This isn’t like getting a quote to have someone cut your lawn or fix your roof. There is a lot more. If I was a property manager, there is no way I would want to give a quote on this without a formal RFP and knowing that the contract was legitimately up for bid. Otherwise I would just just view myself as a negotiating tool.
> 
> Point is that if you are requiring competing quotes before making a decision, you will never be able to vote yes. Boards always face uncertainty and not enough information. It’s a risk both they and the owners have to consider.


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> jabberwocky,
> 
> No, I'm not hung up on the idea the board doesn't have quotes from other companies to take over the management contract. I'm hung up on the lack of information overall about what the BOD sees for SH moving forward if Hyatt is removed from the picture. There has been nothing offered up that gives owners even a glimpse of how life at SH would be if owners vote in the affirmative to dump Hyatt. It's basically been "We don't like Hyatt and we want to get rid of them."
> 
> The lack of financial projection of savings by dumping Hyatt is at this point an unknown and not one I'm comfortable with. I've been around the business world for a long time (well, I'm retired now but worked 35+ years in the business world). I don't expect that any management company would put out a quote without an official RFP. But, I do believe the BOD could be doing some research and developing some modeling that would allow them some insight into what the potential costs of other management companies would be. While there would be no hard numbers and no guarantee, at least they would be able to give owners some idea of what the savings would (or wouldn't be). Of course, that would have to be couched in projections and presented that way to owners but at least there would be SOME information for owners to make a determination if they want to vote "Yes" or "No." Owners are worried about the financial ramifications of leaving Hyatt as well as the lack of opportunity to exchange into other Hyatt resorts, etc.
> 
> The BOD must have some idea of what they see for SH in the future; how much they think they're going to save owners. They should have a vision for moving forward beyond the "We strongly dislike Hyatt/Marriott and we want them out of the way because they've been difficult to deal with." From where I stand, that is NOT a reason to move away from Hyatt at this time. I don't like all the price gouging either but I have no idea what a new management company might do. And there certainly are enough horror stories out there where independent management companies have run a timeshare into the ground. I am not going to pay close to $6000.00 a year for my weeks at SH only to have an independent management company beat it down until it's just another so-so resort. I'd like Hyatt to do the right thing and step up and fix the things that need to be fixed.
> 
> Again, I'd like to see Hyatt and the SH BOD get together and begin negotiations to come to solid, written, and agreed upon solutions.  Hyatt can do this now or they can watch HRC slowly dissipate over time.  More and more of their resorts are going to bail out.  They cannot move quick enough to gain control of the voting at SH.  They can make the changes necessary, meet the owners and the BOD halfway (or more) right now or watch SH slip right out of their hands.  The BOD might not get the result they want from this current vote (which is why I think they should call it off) but eventually owners are going to have enough of Hyatt's price gouging and lack of action to update the resort and they're going to get rid of Hyatt.  It would benefit everyone if the BOD and Hyatt would enter negotiations NOW.


I doubt that Marriott is interested in negotiations.  They have a formula that produces so much a year.  If they negotiate with one resort, all will want equal treatment and that would mean giving up lots of revenue. There were certainly no negotiations when they decided to implement the HPP and abandon any new resorts for HRC or week sales. In fact the corporate officers signed the Club to Club Exchange Agreement on our behalf (in the fine print, by continuing to use the club we gave our consent) without so much as even telling us that they were abandoning the HRC that they originally sold us and that we would become secondary to the HPP in priority unless we purchased HPP.  I’ve never quite understood how the various state Real Estate Departments let them get away with it. If it’s legal, it’s certainly not ethical. I again mention that the condition of the Sunset Harbor units is not that great so Hyatt hasn’t been any big help with maintaining standards and they’ve not given us any reason to believe that it will be better in the future.


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> jabberwocky,
> 
> No, I'm not hung up on the idea the board doesn't have quotes from other companies to take over the management contract. I'm hung up on the lack of information overall about what the BOD sees for SH moving forward if Hyatt is removed from the picture. There has been nothing offered up that gives owners even a glimpse of how life at SH would be if owners vote in the affirmative to dump Hyatt. It's basically been "We don't like Hyatt and we want to get rid of them."
> 
> The lack of financial projection of savings by dumping Hyatt is at this point an unknown and not one I'm comfortable with. I've been around the business world for a long time (well, I'm retired now but worked 35+ years in the business world). I don't expect that any management company would put out a quote without an official RFP. But, I do believe the BOD could be doing some research and developing some modeling that would allow them some insight into what the potential costs of other management companies would be. While there would be no hard numbers and no guarantee, at least they would be able to give owners some idea of what the savings would (or wouldn't be). Of course, that would have to be couched in projections and presented that way to owners but at least there would be SOME information for owners to make a determination if they want to vote "Yes" or "No." Owners are worried about the financial ramifications of leaving Hyatt as well as the lack of opportunity to exchange into other Hyatt resorts, etc.
> 
> The BOD must have some idea of what they see for SH in the future; how much they think they're going to save owners. They should have a vision for moving forward beyond the "We strongly dislike Hyatt/Marriott and we want them out of the way because they've been difficult to deal with." From where I stand, that is NOT a reason to move away from Hyatt at this time. I don't like all the price gouging either but I have no idea what a new management company might do. And there certainly are enough horror stories out there where independent management companies have run a timeshare into the ground. I am not going to pay close to $6000.00 a year for my weeks at SH only to have an independent management company beat it down until it's just another so-so resort. I'd like Hyatt to do the right thing and step up and fix the things that need to be fixed.
> 
> Again, I'd like to see Hyatt and the SH BOD get together and begin negotiations to come to solid, written, and agreed upon solutions.  Hyatt can do this now or they can watch HRC slowly dissipate over time.  More and more of their resorts are going to bail out.  They cannot move quick enough to gain control of the voting at SH.  They can make the changes necessary, meet the owners and the BOD halfway (or more) right now or watch SH slip right out of their hands.  The BOD might not get the result they want from this current vote (which is why I think they should call it off) but eventually owners are going to have enough of Hyatt's price gouging and lack of action to update the resort and they're going to get rid of Hyatt.  It would benefit everyone if the BOD and Hyatt would enter negotiations NOW.


The HRC is already slowly dissipating.  Just take a look at how many 1 night reservations are left in high seasons at the various resorts. Those are reservations that an HPP owner reserved the 6 nights and left the 7th for the resort to worry about filling—along with the wear and tear, cleaning expense etc. of a one night stay.  Additionally, all of those units would have been available for HRC traders if not for the priority given to HPP. As you can tell, I am a bit angry about how all of this transpired, but hey, it’s the timeshare business.


----------



## AJCts411

At sunset harbor before portfolio  what skin did HRC have in the game?  All cashflow and profits came from the owners of Sunset.  Mr
Corporate sees the stagnation of cashflow and profit...invents portfolio.  HRC stops selling weeks, starts buying up weeks via ROFR and commences the plan to sell points only.  HCR really is only an exchange resource...that was changed via portfolio.  At some point legacy owners who do trade will have to buy into portfolio IMO.  MVC  is a for profit corporation...nothing wrong with that. Thier goal is to maximize shareholder value.  Owners I suggest stand in the way of that goal.


----------



## Sapper

ivywag said:


> I doubt that Marriott is interested in negotiations.  They have a formula that produces so much a year.  If they negotiate with one resort, all will want equal treatment and that would mean giving up lots of revenue. There were certainly no negotiations when they decided to implement the HPP and abandon any new resorts for HRC or week sales. In fact the corporate officers signed the Club to Club Exchange Agreement on our behalf (in the fine print, by continuing to use the club we gave our consent) without so much as even telling us that they were abandoning the HRC that they originally sold us and that we would become secondary to the HPP in priority unless we purchased HPP.  I’ve never quite understood how the various state Real Estate Departments let them get away with it. If it’s legal, it’s certainly not ethical. I again mention that the condition of the Sunset Harbor units is not that great so Hyatt hasn’t been any big help with maintaining standards and they’ve not given us any reason to believe that it will be better in the future.



I think MVC may be willing to negotiate this time. Why? Hyatt/MVC did not believe they would loose Aspen, then they did. The precedent has been set. Now Sunset is at risk of departing. One property leaving might be explained away by Hyatt/MVC to share holders and other owners. Two leaving the system, much harder to explain away. The saying “one bang is a backfire, two bangs are gun shots” seems appropriate here. In some ways, Sunset has more visibility than Aspen as it has more owners and traders than Aspen. It is also in a location with two other Hyatts close by with owners who will be asking what happened to Sunset if they do depart. All of these owners will be asking questions of the BoD of their own properties, not just the others in KW (which have too many units in HPP do get a vote to depart). The BoD of the other resorts, if being asked by enough owners, will have to take a look at what leaving the Hyatt system will look like and report back to the owners. This could easily lead to a number of other resorts with weak HPP representation to depart the system. I can see Park Hyatt in BC being interested in departing (if for no other reason than cost savings, their maintenance fees are insane); not sure how that would look being inside the Hyatt hotel… but it could happen. Incline Village has historically had a strong BoD and not much HPP ownership… they will take a look at departing. Once the Hawaii property is sold out from being under the developer’s control, they will certainly look at it. I’m not sure about Carmel, the BoD seems to be less responsive to owners and more responsive to Hyatt management. I have zero knowledge about the other Beaver Creek property, Main Street Station, Piñon Pointe, Coconut, and Siesta Key (which seems to do what ever they want regardless). Wild Oak, the other two KW properties and Puerto Rico are firmly under the control of Hyatt/MVC and have significant HPP ownership, so they will never leave the system. The unwinding of the Hyatt system would have a significant downside pressure on Hyatt profitability to MVC. It would also be a tougher sell if MVC is trying to sell the system off as a broken system is not as valuable as a healthy system. With all that said, Hyatt/MVC MAY be willing to negotiate.

Also with all that said, it might not be in the owners best interest to negotiate.  Why?  Hypothetically, let’s say Hyatt/MVC agrees to all of the owners demands (even I doubt that, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s say they do).  Hyatt/MVC will be looking for ways to bring up profits. They will probably increase all the little annoying fees to something that is truly uncomfortable. This will impact HRC owners more than HPP owners, and actually becomes a selling point for the HPP sales team (“buy HPP and trade in your dirty deed to get out from under all the evil fees”).  Think that $650 sales gouge is bad, think $3650 or $6650. Owners will not be able to sell their ownership, and Hyatt/MVC acquires the deeds for nothing as there will be a “give back“ program. They will also start ROFRing everything at the at risk properties (if they are smart, and they are, they probably already have a repurchase budget increase request in with MVC to do this).  They will then gain control at Sunset (probably not at Hawaii and Park Hyatt), among others, and that will be the end of owner input as Hyatt will replace the directors that are anti-Hyatt/MVC.  Would there be a massive lawsuit?  Maybe. However, MVC has a bunch of bored lawyers looking for a reason to exist.

So, Hyatt/MVC May be willing to negotiate, but I’m not sure that the owners should. While I disagree with how the BoD at Sunset has handled the situation, they have put the property ownership in a situation where the best course of action my be to leave.


----------



## Kal

Hyatt/MVC will likely see the HSH vote as a non-starter and do nothing.  This will strengthen their hand and raise maintenance fees at will and rely on ROFR to increase Portfolio ownership to overcome any future BOD vote.  It's now or never and HSH owners are more worried about micro-management of BOD actions.  Expect to see M/F in December >$2000 with absolutely no additional benefit.


----------



## dioxide45

Kal said:


> Hyatt/MVC will likely see the HSH vote as a non-starter and do nothing.  This will strengthen their hand and raise maintenance fees at will and rely on ROFR to increase Portfolio ownership to overcome any future BOD vote.  It's now or never and HSH owners are more worried about micro-management of BOD actions.  Expect to see M/F in December >$2000 with absolutely no additional benefit.


Don't maintenance fees go to cover resort expenses? With the exception of management fees, MVW can't simply divert HOA funds to their pocket.


----------



## Kal

dioxide45 said:


> Don't maintenance fees go to cover resort expenses? With the exception of management fees, MVW can't simply divert HOA funds to their pocket.


Yes, resort expenses PLUS all the MVW fees which are numerous and very high.  Even for expenses, they put their finger on the scale on how vendors/contractors are selected.  As an example, they add their 13% fee on top of capital reserves and call it "operational reserves".


----------



## JanT

I'm getting to the point I think I might just offer up our weeks for buy back to Hyatt right now to escape the whole damned mess.  I might be able to get a nice little sum from them since they're looking at ways to grab up weeks for HPP and retain control.  Either way, I see a sh--storm coming down the pike - it doesn't matter who gets control of SH.  Hyatt/MWC will screw it up and most likely an independent management company will screw it up.  Even as I write that, I realize dumping our weeks right now is almost certainly my best move.


----------



## echino

dioxide45 said:


> Don't maintenance fees go to cover resort expenses? With the exception of management fees, MVW can't simply divert HOA funds to their pocket.



Maintenance fees are determined by the budget (projected expenses), not the actual expenses - big difference. Hyatt has an incentive to increase the budget, so that their management fee is increased as well. There are many accounting games that can be played to inflate the budget. That does not necessarily mean actual expenses will be increased, or any actual benefit to the resort. It's all just an accounting exercise.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> Yes, resort expenses PLUS all the MVW fees which are numerous and very high.  Even for expenses, they put their finger on the scale on how vendors/contractors are selected.  As an example, they add their 13% fee on top of capital reserves and call it "operational reserves".


Just so you know, the 13% management fee at Sunset Harbor is lower than the fees at other Hyatt properties. For example, the fee at the Coconut Plantation is 15%. Naturally no one wants to pay high fees, but without knowing what projected fees from a unknown new management company might be isn’t this just wishful thinking?


----------



## Kal

The adventure will get interesting after the Marriott clown show next week.  If they don't even begin to respond to the BOD financial issues, they will absolutely show their true colors and it will indeed be a "sh--storm".


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Just so you know, the 13% management fee at Sunset Harbor is lower than the fees at other Hyatt properties. For example, the fee at the Coconut Plantation is 15%. Naturally no one wants to pay high fees, but without knowing what projected fees from a unknown new management company might be isn’t this just wishful thinking?


They have already stuck it to Coconut, and as the BOD stated, 15% is soon to come.  Besides, 13% is already outrageous.


----------



## ivywag

dioxide45 said:


> Don't maintenance fees go to cover resort expenses? With the exception of management fees, MVW can't simply divert HOA funds to their pocket.


No, but they can raise employee salaries, maintenance contracts and other vendors. They manage all aspects of the resort.


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> I'm getting to the point I think I might just offer up our weeks for buy back to Hyatt right now to escape the whole damned mess.  I might be able to get a nice little sum from them since they're looking at ways to grab up weeks for HPP and retain control.  Either way, I see a sh--storm coming down the pike - it doesn't matter who gets control of SH.  Hyatt/MWC will screw it up and most likely an independent management company will screw it up.  Even as I write that, I realize dumping our weeks right now is almost certainly my best move.


Thanks for your consideration and support for your fellow owners.


----------



## dioxide45

echino said:


> Maintenance fees are determined by the budget (projected expenses), not the actual expenses - big difference. Hyatt has an incentive to increase the budget, so that their management fee is increased as well. There are many accounting games that can be played to inflate the budget. That does not necessarily mean actual expenses will be increased, or any actual benefit to the resort. It's all just an accounting exercise.


But if the money isn't spent, it has to go somewhere.


----------



## bizaro86

dioxide45 said:


> But if the money isn't spent, it has to go somewhere.



It can go into a bank account labeled "operating reserves" and they can take their 13-15% cut for supervising that bank transfer.


----------



## dioxide45

bizaro86 said:


> It can go into a bank account labeled "operating reserves" and they can take their 13-15% cut for supervising that bank transfer.


I beleive the movement of funds between reserves and operating expenses requires a vote of the board. An HOA is usually a non profit organization and would need to return any operational expense surplus to the owners, either by way of direct refund or lowering the future operating expense collection. Perhaps the excess gets spend on bloated contracts and such that they have with preferred vendors.


----------



## echino

dioxide45 said:


> But if the money isn't spent, it has to go somewhere.



Any surplus automatically goes to the reserves. Look at the audited financial statements.


----------



## dioxide45

echino said:


> Any surplus automatically goes to the reserves. Look at the audited financial statements.


Then that should result is less collected each year for reserve funding. In the end, all money collected is spend on resort operations or renovations (or management fee), it doesn't simply get slipped into MVW's pocket. It is of course possible that MVW increases the line items for certain things like accounting, HR, owner services, etc to increase their profit on those line items.


----------



## echino

dioxide45 said:


> Then that should result is less collected each year for reserve funding. In the end, all money collected is spend on resort operations or renovations (or management fee), it doesn't simply get slipped into MVW's pocket. It is of course possible that MVW increases the line items for certain things like accounting, HR, owner services, etc to increase their profit on those line items.



Correct, the surplus remains with the association, in the reserves. Hyatt's goal here is to increase their management fee, which is calculated as a percentage of operating expenses. So Hyatt has an incentive to over-budget, so that they could collect more management fees. Whether that over-budget is actually spent, or is unspent and then goes to the reserves, doesn't matter to Hyatt, they have already got their management fee on that amount.


----------



## alameda94501

Lingber said:


> Email today from HRC.
> 
> They have very different owner usage numbers from what has been discussed here and on Facebook. Claims were made that owner usage was around 80%. HRC says the number from 2018-2021 is 38%.



Thanks for this @Lingber. For non Sunset Harbor owners, is there anything else in the email you can share? I'm curious about any other facts or statistics they provided.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> Just so you know, the 13% management fee at Sunset Harbor is lower than the fees at other Hyatt properties. For example, the fee at the Coconut Plantation is 15%. Naturally no one wants to pay high fees, but without knowing what projected fees from a unknown new management company might be isn’t this just wishful thinking?


And higher than Aspen ... can a Aspen owner give us the amount...seems it is 7 % ...and marriot has given the BOD  notice that our fees are increasing to 15%.


----------



## dioxide45

AJCts411 said:


> And higher than Aspen ... can a Aspen owner give us the amount...seems it is 7 % ...and marriot has given the BOD  notice that our fees are increasing to 15%.


From what I understand, most independent management companies operate on a fixed management fee instead of one based on a percentage of maintenance fee. One of the estimates what that it is around 7%, but still a fixed $ amount that probably adjusts for certain factors year to year.


----------



## JanT

Be pissed at me if you want.  But, many of my fellow owners aren't doing anything to support me or other owners who aren't appeased with empty platitudes. Push the damned BOD to do their homework and at least present some modeling information they've put together to give us some idea of what they expect to accomplish by dumping Hyatt.  Their rationale at this point isn't even rationale.  They rushed to put this vote out to the members without a lot of substance, actually, virtually no substance.  Again, their comments have pretty much been "Hyatt is bad, Hyatt is price gouging, Hyatt is threatening a substantial increase in management fees, etc.)  Ok, so that's their stance.  Then they have a responsibility to put together a solid plan to lead SH owners out of the damned mess - not just lip service.  TELL owners what their vision is, what they logically think they can accomplish by moving to an independent management company and HOW the BOD is going to protect SH from going the way a lot of other resorts have gone once an independent management company was brought on - down the toilet; give some reasonable expectations what they expect to save in regards to budget if Hyatt is pushed out.  They have NOT done that and they're expecting owners to just push the button on "Yes" and go blindly into the night without any light at all to guide them.  I'm not doing that.

The board has every right to and should cancel this vote. They rushed to do it and it has blown up in their face - and ours, as owners. Hyatt now *knows* there is a move to push them out. You think they're not going to do everything in their power to stop it? Of course they are and it's probably going to work, ultimately harming HRC owners the worst. You think I want to get caught up in that mess, where ultimately I have to GIVE my weeks back because they jack up a transfer fee well beyond the current price gouge of $650? Why in the world would I wait until that happens? I don't think Hyatt can move fast enough to gather up weeks to keep full control BUT eventually they will. And now, because of the way this thing was shot out of the gun by the BOD, there might be a big influx of owners trying to sell because they don't want to get caught up in it either. That is only going to accelerate Hyatt's ability to grab up those weeks, shove them in HPP, and force a untenable situation for HRC weeks owners. No, I don't think I'm going to hang on to ride that pony and I won't be the only one.

So, where are we now? The BOD was irresponsible in their rush to push this through and Hyatt now knows what they're up to. Hyatt has deep pockets and the owners don't. The absolute best thing the BOD could do is cancel this damned vote right now. Get some specific information together about how Hyatt/Marriott has failed SH; do some modeling to put together some potential and realistic numbers for cost savings, lay out a vision of what their plans are to bring costs down, get the resort back into the shape it should be in. Then get that out to owners so they have INFORMATION to base a vote on.  At least *TRY* to negotiate with Hyatt and if that fails, then, call for another vote by owners to get rid of Hyatt. 

If they think Hyatt is a trainwreck, then tell the owners WHY, have the evidence to back it up, and lay out a reasonable plan they've developed that supports dumping Hyatt. They haven't done that and no one can expect owners to just jump on board to get rid of Hyatt because they say so. This has been handled so poorly, it's infuriating. They have placed owners in a TERRIBLE position by stirring a huge pot of crap and throwing it in Hyatt's face, alerting them to the intention of pushing them out and having absolutely nothing to present to owners to show us WHY it's worth leaving Hyatt. How damned irresponsible and stupid!! The more I've mulled it, the angrier I've become. Stick around SH if you want to, ivywag. That's your choice. Not everyone is willing to and that's OUR prerogative.




ivywag said:


> Thanks for your consideration and support for your fellow owners.


----------



## SteveinHNL

I think JanT has made the most articulate recitation for why an owner who is open to “yes” might sensibly vote “no.”   However, I was under the impression that Hyatt had a representative on the board so none of this information should be new to them. They would and should have known this was coming long ago and yet they have done nothing to try to negotiate or assuage the Board’s concerns.  I think that says something.


----------



## alameda94501

SteveinHNL said:


> I think he might be his own source.



Plot twist...  Turns out @Emerson was correct.  (Well, it is actually $1.55mm not $1.4mm, but close...)


----------



## SteveinHNL

What are the allegations in the lawsuit?


----------



## travelhacker

alameda94501 said:


> Plot twist...  Turns out @Emerson was correct.  (Well, it is actually $1.55mm not $1.4mm, but close...)
> 
> View attachment 58403


This article who the defendant is in this case:









						Hyatt loses Grand Aspen Resort management contract to East West
					

New contract to go into effect in December, current staff to remain in place




					www.aspendailynews.com
				




It would appear that he was president of the board when the resort formerly known as the Hyatt Grand Aspen dropped Hyatt.


----------



## alameda94501

One thing that's interesting in that lawsuit is that it describes:

1.  The Management Agreement would terminate upon the approval of 2/3 of the Board and the approval of 2/3 of the membership. Litigation was not required to terminate the Management Agreement.

2.  The [Hyatt Vacation Club Resort] Agreement was subject to termination by the Association pursuant to the terms of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-305, requiring a simple majority vote of the Board. Again, litigation was not required to terminate the Club Agreement. 

Not sure what Florida law is like, but a simple majority vote of the Board to terminate HRC is a lot less in requirements than I thought!

--- 

Colorado Revised Statutes:

*38-33.3-305. Termination of contracts and leases of declarant.*
(1) The following contracts and leases, if entered into before the executive board elected by the unit owners pursuant to section 38-33.3-303 (7) takes office, may be terminated without penalty by the association, at any time after the executive board elected by the unit owners pursuant to section 38-33.3-303 (7) takes office, upon not less than ninety days’ notice to the other party:
(a) Any management contract, employment contract, or lease of recreational or parking areas or facilities;
(b) Any other contract or lease between the association and a declarant or an affiliate of a declarant; or
(c) Any contract or lease that is not bona fide or was unconscionable to the unit owners at the time entered into under the circumstances then prevailing.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any lease the termination of which would terminate the common interest community or reduce its size, unless the real estate subject to that lease was included in the common interest community for the purpose of avoiding the right of the association to terminate a lease under this section or a proprietary lease.


----------



## kwsunset

JanT said:


> Be pissed at me if you want.  But, many of my fellow owners aren't doing anything to support me or other owners who aren't appeased with empty platitudes. Push the damned BOD to do their homework and at least present some modeling information they've put together to give us some idea of what they expect to accomplish by dumping Hyatt.  Their rationale at this point isn't even rationale.  They rushed to put this vote out to the members without a lot of substance, actually, virtually no substance.  Again, their comments have pretty much been "Hyatt is bad, Hyatt is price gouging, Hyatt is threatening a substantial increase in management fees, etc.)  Ok, so that's their stance.  Then they have a responsibility to put together a solid plan to lead SH owners out of the damned mess - not just lip service.  TELL owners what their vision is, what they logically think they can accomplish by moving to an independent management company and HOW the BOD is going to protect SH from going the way a lot of other resorts have gone once an independent management company was brought on - down the toilet; give some reasonable expectations what they expect to save in regards to budget if Hyatt is pushed out.  They have NOT done that and they're expecting owners to just push the button on "Yes" and go blindly into the night without any light at all to guide them.  I'm not doing that.
> 
> The board has every right to and should cancel this vote. They rushed to do it and it has blown up in their face - and ours, as owners. Hyatt now *knows* there is a move to push them out. You think they're not going to do everything in their power to stop it? Of course they are and it's probably going to work, ultimately harming HRC owners the worst. You think I want to get caught up in that mess, where ultimately I have to GIVE my weeks back because they jack up a transfer fee well beyond the current price gouge of $650? Why in the world would I wait until that happens? I don't think Hyatt can move fast enough to gather up weeks to keep full control BUT eventually they will. And now, because of the way this thing was shot out of the gun by the BOD, there might be a big influx of owners trying to sell because they don't want to get caught up in it either. That is only going to accelerate Hyatt's ability to grab up those weeks, shove them in HPP, and force a untenable situation for HRC weeks owners. No, I don't think I'm going to hang on to ride that pony and I won't be the only one.
> 
> So, where are we now? The BOD was irresponsible in their rush to push this through and Hyatt now knows what they're up to. Hyatt has deep pockets and the owners don't. The absolute best thing the BOD could do is cancel this damned vote right now. Get some specific information together about how Hyatt/Marriott has failed SH; do some modeling to put together some potential and realistic numbers for cost savings, lay out a vision of what their plans are to bring costs down, get the resort back into the shape it should be in. Then get that out to owners so they have INFORMATION to base a vote on.  At least *TRY* to negotiate with Hyatt and if that fails, then, call for another vote by owners to get rid of Hyatt.
> 
> If they think Hyatt is a trainwreck, then tell the owners WHY, have the evidence to back it up, and lay out a reasonable plan they've developed that supports dumping Hyatt. They haven't done that and no one can expect owners to just jump on board to get rid of Hyatt because they say so. This has been handled so poorly, it's infuriating. They have placed owners in a TERRIBLE position by stirring a huge pot of crap and throwing it in Hyatt's face, alerting them to the intention of pushing them out and having absolutely nothing to present to owners to show us WHY it's worth leaving Hyatt. How damned irresponsible and stupid!! The more I've mulled it, the angrier I've become. Stick around SH if you want to, ivywag. That's your choice. Not everyone is willing to and that's OUR prerogative.


I agree with you on, how they just sprang it on us, and want us to vote with so little time or information to take a vote. We have been HSH owners for 25 years and have used our unit, maybe half of the time. Loved to travel to new places and trading our unit has made that possible. Never had to worry about getting what we wanted, because we owned at HSH ,  such a high trader. With having other residence clubs on KW we could easily use a week at HSH and have enough points left over to go to HWP or HBH, for another 3 nights.  No we are not HPP just regular owners. I said in an earlier post, that I also know one of the board. Talked to them last fall, and NOTHING was even hinted about leaving Hyatt. Not Happy about that, not that I should have had inside info, just a heads up, with a possibility that it might happen, would have been nice.


----------



## kwsunset

JanT said:


> Be pissed at me if you want.  But, many of my fellow owners aren't doing anything to support me or other owners who aren't appeased with empty platitudes. Push the damned BOD to do their homework and at least present some modeling information they've put together to give us some idea of what they expect to accomplish by dumping Hyatt.  Their rationale at this point isn't even rationale.  They rushed to put this vote out to the members without a lot of substance, actually, virtually no substance.  Again, their comments have pretty much been "Hyatt is bad, Hyatt is price gouging, Hyatt is threatening a substantial increase in management fees, etc.)  Ok, so that's their stance.  Then they have a responsibility to put together a solid plan to lead SH owners out of the damned mess - not just lip service.  TELL owners what their vision is, what they logically think they can accomplish by moving to an independent management company and HOW the BOD is going to protect SH from going the way a lot of other resorts have gone once an independent management company was brought on - down the toilet; give some reasonable expectations what they expect to save in regards to budget if Hyatt is pushed out.  They have NOT done that and they're expecting owners to just push the button on "Yes" and go blindly into the night without any light at all to guide them.  I'm not doing that.
> 
> The board has every right to and should cancel this vote. They rushed to do it and it has blown up in their face - and ours, as owners. Hyatt now *knows* there is a move to push them out. You think they're not going to do everything in their power to stop it? Of course they are and it's probably going to work, ultimately harming HRC owners the worst. You think I want to get caught up in that mess, where ultimately I have to GIVE my weeks back because they jack up a transfer fee well beyond the current price gouge of $650? Why in the world would I wait until that happens? I don't think Hyatt can move fast enough to gather up weeks to keep full control BUT eventually they will. And now, because of the way this thing was shot out of the gun by the BOD, there might be a big influx of owners trying to sell because they don't want to get caught up in it either. That is only going to accelerate Hyatt's ability to grab up those weeks, shove them in HPP, and force a untenable situation for HRC weeks owners. No, I don't think I'm going to hang on to ride that pony and I won't be the only one.
> 
> So, where are we now? The BOD was irresponsible in their rush to push this through and Hyatt now knows what they're up to. Hyatt has deep pockets and the owners don't. The absolute best thing the BOD could do is cancel this damned vote right now. Get some specific information together about how Hyatt/Marriott has failed SH; do some modeling to put together some potential and realistic numbers for cost savings, lay out a vision of what their plans are to bring costs down, get the resort back into the shape it should be in. Then get that out to owners so they have INFORMATION to base a vote on.  At least *TRY* to negotiate with Hyatt and if that fails, then, call for another vote by owners to get rid of Hyatt.
> 
> If they think Hyatt is a trainwreck, then tell the owners WHY, have the evidence to back it up, and lay out a reasonable plan they've developed that supports dumping Hyatt. They haven't done that and no one can expect owners to just jump on board to get rid of Hyatt because they say so. This has been handled so poorly, it's infuriating. They have placed owners in a TERRIBLE position by stirring a huge pot of crap and throwing it in Hyatt's face, alerting them to the intention of pushing them out and having absolutely nothing to present to owners to show us WHY it's worth leaving Hyatt. How damned irresponsible and stupid!! The more I've mulled it, the angrier I've become. Stick around SH if you want to, ivywag. That's your choice. Not everyone is willing to and that's OUR prerogative.


Also, everyone keeps talking about Aspen isn't that resort on a different kind of ownership? Not single weeks.?


----------



## sjsharkie

kwsunset said:


> Also, everyone keeps talking about Aspen isn't that resort on a different kind of ownership? Not single weeks.?


Different.  Aspen had single week owners, but also had fractional ownerships and bundled ownerships.  See here:








						Sunset Harbor to vote on terminating Hyatt management contract
					

Wouldn't it be nice if MCV responded in a similar manner during their 6/22 dog show.




					tugbbs.com


----------



## alameda94501

SteveinHNL said:


> What are the allegations in the lawsuit?



I've attached the allegations.


----------



## RM@SH

JanT said:


> Be pissed at me if you want.  But, many of my fellow owners aren't doing anything to support me or other owners who aren't appeased with empty platitudes. Push the damned BOD to do their homework and at least present some modeling information they've put together to give us some idea of what they expect to accomplish by dumping Hyatt.  Their rationale at this point isn't even rationale.  They rushed to put this vote out to the members without a lot of substance, actually, virtually no substance.  Again, their comments have pretty much been "Hyatt is bad, Hyatt is price gouging, Hyatt is threatening a substantial increase in management fees, etc.)  Ok, so that's their stance.  Then they have a responsibility to put together a solid plan to lead SH owners out of the damned mess - not just lip service.  TELL owners what their vision is, what they logically think they can accomplish by moving to an independent management company and HOW the BOD is going to protect SH from going the way a lot of other resorts have gone once an independent management company was brought on - down the toilet; give some reasonable expectations what they expect to save in regards to budget if Hyatt is pushed out.  They have NOT done that and they're expecting owners to just push the button on "Yes" and go blindly into the night without any light at all to guide them.  I'm not doing that.
> 
> The board has every right to and should cancel this vote. They rushed to do it and it has blown up in their face - and ours, as owners. Hyatt now *knows* there is a move to push them out. You think they're not going to do everything in their power to stop it? Of course they are and it's probably going to work, ultimately harming HRC owners the worst. You think I want to get caught up in that mess, where ultimately I have to GIVE my weeks back because they jack up a transfer fee well beyond the current price gouge of $650? Why in the world would I wait until that happens? I don't think Hyatt can move fast enough to gather up weeks to keep full control BUT eventually they will. And now, because of the way this thing was shot out of the gun by the BOD, there might be a big influx of owners trying to sell because they don't want to get caught up in it either. That is only going to accelerate Hyatt's ability to grab up those weeks, shove them in HPP, and force a untenable situation for HRC weeks owners. No, I don't think I'm going to hang on to ride that pony and I won't be the only one.
> 
> So, where are we now? The BOD was irresponsible in their rush to push this through and Hyatt now knows what they're up to. Hyatt has deep pockets and the owners don't. The absolute best thing the BOD could do is cancel this damned vote right now. Get some specific information together about how Hyatt/Marriott has failed SH; do some modeling to put together some potential and realistic numbers for cost savings, lay out a vision of what their plans are to bring costs down, get the resort back into the shape it should be in. Then get that out to owners so they have INFORMATION to base a vote on.  At least *TRY* to negotiate with Hyatt and if that fails, then, call for another vote by owners to get rid of Hyatt.
> 
> If they think Hyatt is a trainwreck, then tell the owners WHY, have the evidence to back it up, and lay out a reasonable plan they've developed that supports dumping Hyatt. They haven't done that and no one can expect owners to just jump on board to get rid of Hyatt because they say so. This has been handled so poorly, it's infuriating. They have placed owners in a TERRIBLE position by stirring a huge pot of crap and throwing it in Hyatt's face, alerting them to the intention of pushing them out and having absolutely nothing to present to owners to show us WHY it's worth leaving Hyatt. How damned irresponsible and stupid!! The more I've mulled it, the angrier I've become. Stick around SH if you want to, ivywag. That's your choice. Not everyone is willing to and that's OUR prerogative.


I cannot agree with you more!!!  Unfortunately, we have a very small representation of owners on this chat and a couple that only care to voice the BOD direction and remain ignorant of other possibilities.  I would hope that common sense would drive the other owners to agree 100% with you until such time we have more information but it is beginning to appear that many do not mind voting totally blind.  I have attempted contact with the BOD with no response as to any options other than Hyatt is terrible and what they have at Aspen is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  All 100% speculation with noting to back it up.  I cannot vote yes without knowing what we are voting for.  The only board member that I know and trust is the only one to have voted NO.  I have absolutely no idea who the others are.  Appears to be one or maybe two board members driving this vote.  No idea what the ulterior motives are but do know that there appears to be some dissention in the board over this forced vote.  1 NO vote, 1 board member resigned and 1 board member has relinquished responsibility for this process.  Leaves potentially 2 board members that are behind this.  Without transparency, everyone must vote NO until we are provided the information to make an educated vote.


----------



## Emerson

Given what we now know, Robert Weismann the primary advisor to the Sunset Harbor board, being sued by the Aspen board, one board member voting no and now being vilified by the board, D Heisler, the real estate board member, heading up the break away effort as V. President in charge of Member Services ( conflict of interest?), one board member resigning the week of the vote and then reinstated at the executive board meeting (legally?), the board president indicating privately that he is not fully in support of this effort, this entire effort is deeply flawed. The board should terminate the vote immediately and enter into serious talks with MVW to resolve the issues at Sunset Harbor . A message has been sent and now is the time to move on!


----------



## AJCts411

Why are non week owners of Sunset Harbor pushing so hard for a no vote?   The Weismann suit reads like a lawyer wanting to get paid even though he (lawyers) lost litigation.  How does this apply to Sunset?   Why would a real estate board member on the BOD have a conflict of interest? Are sellers of owned weeks forced to use his realty services?   In what way has the BOD engaged the services of Weismann?  Can the Sunset BOD commit the huge use amounts of dollars being contested in the Weismann suit with out a vote?  Seems Aspen had a vote and funds were approved.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Given what we now know, Robert Weismann the primary advisor to the Sunset Harbor board, being sued by the Aspen board, one board member voting no and now being vilified by the board, D Heisler, the real estate board member, heading up the break away effort as V. President in charge of Member Services ( conflict of interest?), one board member resigning the week of the vote and then reinstated at the executive board meeting (legally?), the board president indicating privately that he is not fully in support of this effort, this entire effort is deeply flawed. The board should terminate the vote immediately and enter into serious talks with MVW to resolve the issues at Sunset Harbor . A message has been sent and now is the time to move on!


Sounds like words from a BOD member.  Wonder who that might be??


----------



## Kal

RM@SH said:


> I cannot agree with you more!!!  Unfortunately, we have a very small representation of owners on this chat and a couple that only care to voice the BOD direction and remain ignorant of other possibilities.  I would hope that common sense would drive the other owners to agree 100% with you until such time we have more information but it is beginning to appear that many do not mind voting totally blind.  I have attempted contact with the BOD with no response as to any options other than Hyatt is terrible and what they have at Aspen is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  All 100% speculation with noting to back it up.  I cannot vote yes without knowing what we are voting for.  The only board member that I know and trust is the only one to have voted NO.  I have absolutely no idea who the others are.  Appears to be one or maybe two board members driving this vote.  No idea what the ulterior motives are but do know that there appears to be some dissention in the board over this forced vote.  1 NO vote, 1 board member resigned and 1 board member has relinquished responsibility for this process.  Leaves potentially 2 board members that are behind this.  Without transparency, everyone must vote NO until we are provided the information to make an educated vote.


Ah yes!  I love the smell of conspiracy in the morning.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> Why are non week owners of Sunset Harbor pushing so hard for a no vote?   The Weismann suit reads like a lawyer wanting to get paid even though he (lawyers) lost litigation.  How does this apply to Sunset?   Why would a real estate board member on the BOD have a conflict of interest? Are sellers of owned weeks forced to use his realty services?   In what way has the BOD engaged the services of Weismann?  Can the Sunset BOD commit the huge use amounts of dollars being contested in the Weismann suit with out a vote?  Seems Aspen had a vote and funds were approved.


A board member being in the real estate business by itself is not a conflict of interest. However, when you vote as a board member and then have your own real estate company sell and rent Hyatt Sunset Harbor weeks is very questionable. That has been going on for years! Now, at the very least, what is his new position going to lead towards moving forward if this vote is successful? That is a fair question that should be answered!


----------



## vacationtime1

Emerson said:


> A board member being in the real estate business by itself is not a conflict of interest. However, when you vote as a board member and then have your own real estate company sell and rent Hyatt Sunset Harbor weeks is very questionable. That has been going on for years! Now, at the very least, what is his new position going to lead towards moving forward if this vote is successful? That is a fair question that should be answered!


The premise here seems to be that someone with a financial interest in what the HOA Board does should be disqualified from serving on that Board.  If so, anyone who owns a unit shouldn't be on the Board either.

There is no claim that anyone wishing to sell or rent a unit must use his brokerage.  So what makes this person's participation into a "very questionable" conflict of interest?


----------



## Emerson

vacationtime1 said:


> The premise here seems to be that someone with a financial interest in what the HOA Board does should be disqualified from serving on that Board.  If so, anyone who owns a unit shouldn't be on the Board either.
> 
> There is no claim that anyone wishing to sell or rent a unit must use his brokerage.  So what makes this person's participation into a "very questionable" conflict of interest?


Rookie mistake


----------



## Kal

vacationtime1 said:


> The premise here seems to be that someone with a financial interest in what the HOA Board does should be disqualified from serving on that Board.  If so, anyone who owns a unit shouldn't be on the Board either.
> 
> There is no claim that anyone wishing to sell or rent a unit must use his brokerage.  So what makes this person's participation into a "very questionable" conflict of interest?


The poster doesn't even have the facts correct.  And doesn't even realize he provided a service to the resort to get rid of the long list of foreclosure units, at a profit to the BOD.  Renting units???? Sure, again no factual basis.


----------



## jabberwocky

Emerson said:


> A board member being in the real estate business by itself is not a conflict of interest. However, when you vote as a board member and then have your own real estate company sell and rent Hyatt Sunset Harbor weeks is very questionable. That has been going on for years! Now, at the very least, what is his new position going to lead towards moving forward if this vote is successful? That is a fair question that should be answered!


Please make your allegation as clear as possible. What impropriety are you alleging?

If you want to argue in favor of a no vote, by all means do so; however, you should do so with facts and real arguments. Smearing the reputation of another individual (who I don’t think is here to defend themselves) in order to breed fear, uncertainty and doubt in the outcome of a yes vote is pretty low IMO. 

Quite frankly, I’m surprised the mods are letting you use this platform to make allegations like this.


----------



## HenryT

INCHWORM said:


> One other consideration for those who post percentages regarding owner occupancy.  These numbers are (IMO) misleading in that you reserve your unit whether YOU are using it ...or whether you are RENTING it. Time after time sitting around the SH pool, I've heard people (owners) saying they're staying multiple weeks because they rented from other owners.  Now some might suggest that is still owner usage,  but I believe it falsifies the stats IMO. Those owners who booked, then rented it out,  probably wanted the $ instead of trading and traveling elsewhere,  but in the future,  perhaps they OR their kids who inherit the timeshares might wish to have options.  I know my kids like going to all my different locations and wouldn't want to be harnessed to any single one


What you said doesn't make sense. Whether an owner occupies their unit or rents it out, it's still being used by the owner and not used to exchange into another Hyatt property.

Because of the high maintenance fees at SH, owners get more value out of renting their units for a profit vs exchanging it for a Hyatt property with lower maintenance fees. Sure, occasionally a SH owner may exchange for another Hyatt unit but that is not the norm. I would never exchange my SH unit for another Hyatt unit (except for Maui). I will rent it out if I am not going to use it. 

I can rent my SH unit, take the rental proceeds and rent most other Hyatt properties from an owner with the funds and have money left over.

I have a lower maintenance fee Hyatt ( Pinon Point) for exchanging to other Hyatt timeshares.


----------



## HenryT

Emerson said:


> Without a clear management plan by the SH board that all owners can understand along with the estimated management fees, how can any owner vote yes. I don’t know any owner that likes their management fees and most all feel that they are too much but at least owners know what they are. Again, there’s too many unanswered questions with respect to this entire proposed break away.


The SH Board can't provide details on the management plan or fees until they have the approval to move forward with the departure from Hyatt. 

You don't know what Hyatt's fees will be next year either. What you do know is that the some Hyatt fees will go away and that the management fee percentage paid to the new management company will probably be lower than the fee percentage paid to Hyatt.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that Hyatt SH fees are extremely high. All you have to do is compare their maintenance fees with the fees at comparable nearby independent timeshares (Galleon, The Banyan Resort, Coconut Beach Resort).

The board explained very well what their process for identifying a new management company would be once they had approval to move forward.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Shakespeare).


----------



## ScoopKona

HenryT said:


> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Shakespeare).



Amazing how all the new users here have the EXACT SAME OPINION. Almost like someone is spamming the "register as a new user" button. Well, robots gonna robot.


----------



## Lingber

Removing my comment. Too much discord already. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JanT

To my knowledge they haven't even done any background work to develop that information - they have no details to share even if they could.  What they could have done was done some research, developed some modeling to indicate potential savings, and put that out. Their argument that they couldn't go out and get any information from management companies because the membership hadn't agreed to push Hyatt out, holds absolutely no water.  No, no reputable management company was going to give a quote without an official RFP, BUT, some casual inquiries and research could have netted them enough information to get an approximate idea on what the cost and/or savings would be.  You're right - it's not rocket science.  The BOD rushed into this for whatever reason and we're in a Hell of a mess now because of it.  

No, we don't know what Hyatt's fees will be next year. And yes, if Hyatt is successfully pushed out, *some* of the Hyatt fees will go away.  How much of those? There is no way to know what a new management company's fees will be and whether they will be cheaper than Hyatt or not.  There is no way to know that, especially since the BOD hasn't presented any evidence to that effect.  Your argument that the management fee percentage paid to a new management company will *"probably be lower than the fee percentage paid to Hyatt"* is purely speculation.  *"Probably"* is a big word to gamble on. 

But, I can almost certainly guarantee that any *potential* cost savings (and that's all it is until more information is gathered - *potential*) will immediately be wiped out and more by the cost of insurance. The cost of insurance outside of the Hyatt umbrella will be exorbitant - well beyond what Hyatt pays. They have the ability to amortize insurance over all Hyatt hotels and timeshare properties, insuring that no one property bears the full burden. SH as an independently managed property isn't going to be able to obtain insurance at the rate Hyatt is getting - not even close. So, any cost savings from reduction in management fees (if there even is one) will disappear and in my opinion there's big potential for fees increasing in order to cover the substantial increase in insurance costs. At some point in time, Key West is going to take a huge hit by a hurricane, almost certainly causing catastrophic damage to the island. SH is going to need catastropic insurance coverage and that takes a lot of money. Just think about that. All those little annoying fees that on the surface seem to be some of the driver to get rid of Hyatt are going to be nothing compared to what owners might have to cough up in special assessment should Hyatt be pushed out and SH no longer has the benefits covered by Hyatt's management.

Look, I think the real reason behind this move to push Hyatt out is to keep them from acquiring any more weeks at SH and eventually having a stranglehold on the resort ownership. The more Hyatt acquires, the more weeks they dump into HPP which without a doubt is a negative for weeks owners. The current BOD (and many others) believe that pushing Hyatt out is the only way to keep Hyatt from acquiring any more weeks. 

Since Hyatt is aware of this move to get rid of them, perhaps there is room for negotiations with them. Maybe not. But, if the BOD doesn't even try, we'll never know. And right now, we're sitting on a ticking time bomb - Hyatt knows what the BOD is trying to accomplish and they're going to move at lightening speed to put a stop to it. 

There may be benefits to leaving Hyatt but I think they are far outweighed by the uncertainties of a new independent management company and the exorbitant cost of insurance that will have to procured outside of the Hyatt umbrella.  At this point, the board needs to cancel the vote, get some information together, meet and negotiate with Hyatt to try to resolve the issues at hand.  If Hyatt isn't going to budge then the owners will have a difficult decision to make.  BUT, at least they will have enough information to make an educated vote.  As it stands now, it's like whizzing into the wind.



HenryT said:


> The SH Board can't provide details on the management plan or fees until they have the approval to move forward with the departure from Hyatt.
> 
> You don't know what Hyatt's fees will be next year either. What you do know is that the some Hyatt fees will go away and that the management fee percentage paid to the new management company will probably be lower than the fee percentage paid to Hyatt.
> 
> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that Hyatt SH fees are extremely high. All you have to do is compare their maintenance fees with the fees at comparable nearby independent timeshares (Galleon, The Banyan Resort, Coconut Beach Resort).
> 
> The board explained very well what their process for identifying a new management company would be once they had approval to move forward.
> 
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Shakespeare).


----------



## ocdb8r

HenryT said:


> The SH Board can't provide details on the management plan or fees until they have the approval to move forward with the departure from Hyatt.



This has been repeated over and over again in this thread, but no one has explained why?  Nothing in the current contract or bylaws prevent the Board from sending out an RFP, seeking other quotes or speaking with other management companies.  Just because owner approval is required to finally terminate the contract with Hyatt and move to another management company doesn't stop the Board from exploring what the options could be and shaping how they might look fee wise....


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> The cost of insurance outside of the Hyatt umbrella will be exorbitant - well beyond what Hyatt pays. They have the ability to amortize insurance over all Hyatt hotels and timeshare properties, insuring that no one property bears the full burden. SH as an independently managed property isn't going to be able to obtain insurance at the rate Hyatt is getting - not even close. So, any cost savings from reduction in management fees (if there even is one) will disappear and in my opinion there's big potential for fees increasing in order to cover the substantial increase in insurance costs. At some point in time, Key West is going to take a huge hit by a hurricane, almost certainly causing catastrophic damage to the island. SH is going to need catastropic insurance coverage and that takes a lot of money.



Key West native chiming in.

This simply isn't true. Hyatt isn't subsidizing insurance. And the cost is well known to literally everyone because there is only one company which will insure property in the Florida Keys -- Citizen's Insurance, which is a quasi-government agency.

Everyone pays the same rates in the Keys. And yes, they're ridiculous. But they're spread out over 52 owners per unit. Your insurance costs aren't going ANYWHERE with a change of management. Not happening. Forget that bit of calculus because it doesn't apply.


----------



## AJCts411

I believe that this (BOD) is not a hey we are just throwing out stuff and see what sticks as you believe. It is a matter of legal liability when ANY BOD puts out less perfect information that can be litigated by an opponent.   That is addressed very well IMO in question#11 in the BOD email.   Extending that liability issue, the BOD would put themselves in legal harms way if they did zero research as you call it.  I'd call the BOD experts in matters at Sunset Harbor with first hand knowledge of budgets, negotiation with MVC and the notice from MVC that our management fees are soon to be, in fact, increasing to 15%. 
 Insurance, fees, maintenance, management fees....*why is Galleons maintenance fees LESS than Sunset*? Independent, no MVC umbrella insurance, higher resale vales? If you want to say restaurants..I say no it is not...those operations are leased to the operators, a tiny fraction of the cash flow. Why are Apsen fees dropping? You can ignore that information if you want to, but it does apply and it is factual.

I will agree that a big reason behind this vote, is to remove MVC and portfolio and ROFR. All of which is suppressing our property values, causing short stay excessive wear and eroding owner rights.  MVC has not negotiated, has not lowered their management fees, and now one thinks that this will make them change their stripes..not a chance.  
There is everything to loose staying under MVC, and everything to gain by being independent...look at Galleon and Banyan both in old town Key West and Aspen *fully insured properties, both gaining value.  *




JanT said:


> To my knowledge they haven't even done any background work to develop that information - they have no details to share even if they could.  What they could have done was done some research, developed some modeling to indicate potential savings, and put that out. Their argument that they couldn't go out and get any information from management companies because the membership hadn't agreed to push Hyatt out, holds absolutely no water.  No, no reputable management company was going to give a quote without an official RFP, BUT, some casual inquiries and research could have netted them enough information to get an approximate idea on what the cost and/or savings would be.  You're right - it's not rocket science.  The BOD rushed into this for whatever reason and we're in a Hell of a mess now because of it.
> 
> No, we don't know what Hyatt's fees will be next year. And yes, if Hyatt is successfully pushed out, *some* of the Hyatt fees will go away.  How much of those? There is no way to know what a new management company's fees will be and whether they will be cheaper than Hyatt or not.  There is no way to know that, especially since the BOD hasn't presented any evidence to that effect.  Your argument that the management fee percentage paid to a new management company will *"probably be lower than the fee percentage paid to Hyatt"* is purely speculation.  *"Probably"* is a big word to gamble on.
> 
> But, I can almost certainly guarantee that any *potential* cost savings (and that's all it is until more information is gathered - *potential*) will immediately be wiped out and more by the cost of insurance. The cost of insurance outside of the Hyatt umbrella will be exorbitant - well beyond what Hyatt pays. They have the ability to amortize insurance over all Hyatt hotels and timeshare properties, insuring that no one property bears the full burden. SH as an independently managed property isn't going to be able to obtain insurance at the rate Hyatt is getting - not even close. So, any cost savings from reduction in management fees (if there even is one) will disappear and in my opinion there's big potential for fees increasing in order to cover the substantial increase in insurance costs. At some point in time, Key West is going to take a huge hit by a hurricane, almost certainly causing catastrophic damage to the island. SH is going to need catastrophic insurance coverage and that takes a lot of money. Just think about that. All those little annoying fees that on the surface seem to be some of the driver to get rid of Hyatt are going to be nothing compared to what owners might have to cough up in special assessment should Hyatt be pushed out and SH no longer has the benefits covered by Hyatt's management.
> 
> Look, I think the real reason behind this move to push Hyatt out is to keep them from acquiring any more weeks at SH and eventually having a stranglehold on the resort ownership. The more Hyatt acquires, the more weeks they dump into HPP which without a doubt is a negative for weeks owners. The current BOD (and many others) believe that pushing Hyatt out is the only way to keep Hyatt from acquiring any more weeks.
> 
> Since Hyatt is aware of this move to get rid of them, perhaps there is room for negotiations with them. Maybe not. But, if the BOD doesn't even try, we'll never know. And right now, we're sitting on a ticking time bomb - Hyatt knows what the BOD is trying to accomplish and they're going to move at lightening speed to put a stop to it.
> 
> There may be benefits to leaving Hyatt but I think they are far outweighed by the uncertainties of a new independent management company and the exorbitant cost of insurance that will have to procured outside of the Hyatt umbrella.  At this point, the board needs to cancel the vote, get some information together, meet and negotiate with Hyatt to try to resolve the issues at hand.  If Hyatt isn't going to budge then the owners will have a difficult decision to make.  BUT, at least they will have enough information to make an educated vote.  As it stands now, it's like whizzing into the wind.


----------



## AJCts411

ocdb8r said:


> This has been repeated over and over again in this thread, but no one has explained why?  Nothing in the current contract or bylaws prevent the Board from sending out an RFP, seeking other quotes or speaking with other management companies.  Just because owner approval is required to finally terminate the contract with Hyatt and move to another management company doesn't stop the Board from exploring what the options could be and shaping how they might look fee wise....


See question 11...it is explained to the owners email.


----------



## ocdb8r

Question 11, where?


----------



## JanT

Scoop,

Thank you for the updated information.  We have always been told that's how Hyatt has kept the insurance down.  If what you're saying is true then that's a good thing and I stand corrected.



ScoopKona said:


> Key West native chiming in.
> 
> This simply isn't true. Hyatt isn't subsidizing insurance. And the cost is well known to literally everyone because there is only one company which will insure property in the Florida Keys -- Citizen's Insurance, which is a quasi-government agency.
> 
> Everyone pays the same rates in the Keys. And yes, they're ridiculous. But they're spread out over 52 owners per unit. Your insurance costs aren't going ANYWHERE with a change of management. Not happening. Forget that bit of calculus because it doesn't apply.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> Scoop,
> 
> Thank you for the updated information.  We have always been told that's how Hyatt has kept the insurance down.  If what you're saying is true then that's a good thing and I stand corrected.



Citizen's Windstorm on my house when I left was $30,000 per year. One of the big reasons I left. I never owned property in the Keys because I simply couldn't afford it. And most landlords couldn't afford Windstorm so if they owned the building outright, they relied on FEMA to take care of them in the event of a catastrophe.

When (not if) Key West receives a direct hit from a Cat 5, it will scour all trace of human habitation off the island. At that point, I think it is likely all owners will share whatever the insurance payout is, and walk away. 

Don't get me wrong -- it's my home town and I don't want anything to happen to it. But the odds are not in favor of that.


----------



## alameda94501

JanT said:


> Look, I think the real reason behind this move to push Hyatt out is to keep them from acquiring any more weeks at SH and eventually having a stranglehold on the resort ownership. The more Hyatt acquires, the more weeks they dump into HPP which without a doubt is a negative for weeks owners. The current BOD (and many others) believe that pushing Hyatt out is the only way to keep Hyatt from acquiring any more weeks.



But does that really work?  It appears ROFR is continuing to work for Hyatt (as Developer) as of May.  Firing Hyatt (as Manager) doesn't seem to affect Hyatt (as Developer)'s ROFR at all according to the original condominium covenants. 

I am not an owner at Sunset Harbor but if I were, I would want to make sure this cornerstone of the Board's proposal was sound before voting.

The second thing I would ask is whether we could get rid of Hyatt (as Manager) first to see how well we could save Maintenance Fees, but retain Hyatt (as Club) for an extra year to see how it goes.  Saving $157/yr and renting out one's own deeded week is appealing to TUGgers because of how we view the world.  But that's not necessarily how the rest of the world thinks.  The cost of kicking out Hyatt (as Club) is in property/resale value - most folks would pay $157 for the convenience of having an entire internal exchange and not taking on risk / hassle with renting their unit. 

All things being equal, my guess is that the property value in resale of a resort unit-week with internal HRC exchange would be higher than the property value in resale of a resort unit-week without.


----------



## ScoopKona

alameda94501 said:


> All things being equal, my guess is that the property value in resale of a resort unit-week with internal HRC exchange would be higher than the property value in resale of a resort unit-week without.



Compare the Galleon and Sunset Harbor. Galleon's resale values are higher -- and it isn't as nice a location. All things are already equal -- you have an apples-to-apples comparison within walking distance. 

Management is doing what's best for management, not the owners. From my vantage point, the only group looking out for the owners at this moment is the BOD.


----------



## alameda94501

ScoopKona said:


> Management is doing what's best for management, not the owners. From my vantage point, the only group looking out for the owners at this moment is the BOD.



I'd get rid of Hyatt (as Manager).


----------



## ivywag

AJCts411 said:


> See question 11...it is explained to the owners email.


Perhaps ocdb8r is not an owner at Sunset Harbor and did not receive the email?


----------



## JanT

Well, I will tell you I'm fairly certain the BOD did not do any specific research for a couple of reasons:

1. They didn't want to spend HOA funds to do it unless ownership agreed to push Hyatt out.

2. They didn't want to give out any cost savings numbers for fear they wouldn't be able to actually bring that to fruition and they would face backlash from owners.

Of course there are liability issues - that's why they should have had their ducks in a row, with some fairly solid numbers in their hands. It's not impossible to develop a plan with reliable numbers to present to owners while allowing a caveat that the numbers could shift. Owners will understand and accept that. But without any real evidence of malfeasance by Hyatt/MVC, without even a hint of cost savings, or a plan for the future of SH, many owners are not going to jump on board for this.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether this BOD are experts or not. I have tried very hard not to attack them, as a board or as individuals. I'm grateful anyone is willing to sit on a BOD of an HOA - it is a thankless job. BUT, I will and have voiced my displeasure at how they rolled this thing out. It was haphazard at best and because it was, they are never going to get this vote passed. Done correctly, they might have garnered more support. I want to be clear that I don't support the absolute shilling that's gone on here by some people. I'm not part of that group in any way. They have their own agenda for whatever reason. I don't like proprietory information being leaked out and draws into question the integrity of whatever board member(s) are doing that. That is of grave concern to me.

I don't know why the Galleon's MF's are less than Sunset Harbor. Do you? I haven't delved into their operating expenditures. I can tell you that for many years, the Galleon was considered a lesser property than SH by many people that I know. Is it? I don't know. I've never stayed there. They have and they didn't consider it on a level with SH. Have the Galleon and Banyan's resale values increased? I have no idea. Can you provide some evidence of that? I'd like to see it - not because I don't believe you but just that I would like to see the information. It could be their resale values have increased because they were lower in the first place. Maybe it's because property values in Key West have gone up. Maybe it's because there has been less inventory there, therefore driving demand up, therefore driving the prices up. I don't know. There are a lot of variables that could cause their values to increase but honestly, no one should ever buy a timeshare thinking it's some kind of investment. A suppression of property values at SH? It's a timeshare - no one should be counting on an increase in property values.

I'm glad to see that someone else is willing to admit the main reasons behind the push to remove MVC. It's taken awhile to get that out there in the open. It's not really all the little fees supposedly bugging the owners. It's really the desire to push out MVC, so they stop acquiring weeks, so HPP gets pushed out. The argument about short stays is really interesting. There is dissension about short night reservations but even weeks owners can book short stays (1, 2, 3, etc. nights). Isn't it not so much the short stays but in reality the fact that HPP gets priority over weeks owners in some cases? I get it - that pisses people off who bought weeks there but if the majority of weeks owners actually use their weeks and do nothing else, then what is the problem? I'm beginning to think it's really because short night stays by HPP or even Hyatt renting those nights out (which Marriott does with their properties, too) is bringing in "strangers" and SH loses that "family" feel generated by weeks owners who occupy every year or occupy significantly. Is that it? You sight excessive wear and tear from short term stays but how are short term stays by HPP people or even rentals causing any more wear and tear than a weeks owner who books a short stay? Or how about owners that don't even use their weeks, but rent them out instead? In general, many of them don't know who they're renting to really. They're renting to strangers who might put excessive wear on the resort. Look, I'm just trying to understand that whole "short stay issue" some people seem to be having.






AJCts411 said:


> I believe that this (BOD) is not a hey we are just throwing out stuff and see what sticks as you believe. It is a matter of legal liability when ANY BOD puts out less perfect information that can be litigated by an opponent.   That is addressed very well IMO in question#11 in the BOD email.   Extending that liability issue, the BOD would put themselves in legal harms way if they did zero research as you call it.  I'd call the BOD experts in matters at Sunset Harbor with first hand knowledge of budgets, negotiation with MVC and the notice from MVC that our management fees are soon to be, in fact, increasing to 15%.
> Insurance, fees, maintenance, management fees....*why is Galleons maintenance fees LESS than Sunset*? Independent, no MVC umbrella insurance, higher resale vales? If you want to say restaurants..I say no it is not...those operations are leased to the operators, a tiny fraction of the cash flow. Why are Apsen fees dropping? You can ignore that information if you want to, but it does apply and it is factual.
> 
> I will agree that a big reason behind this vote, is to remove MVC and portfolio and ROFR. All of which is suppressing our property values, causing short stay excessive wear and eroding owner rights.  MVC has not negotiated, has not lowered their management fees, and now one thinks that this will make them change their stripes..not a chance.
> There is everything to loose staying under MVC, and everything to gain by being independent...look at Galleon and Banyan both in old town Key West and Aspen *fully insured properties, both gaining value.  *


----------



## AJCts411

ocdb8r said:


> Question 11, where?


The BOD emailed Owners at Suset Harbor which had an acumulation of questions beng asked by owners.  #11 speaks to your post.


----------



## AJCts411

JanT said:


> I don't know why the Galleon's MF's are less than Sunset Harbor. Do you? I haven't delved into their operating expenditures. I can tell you that for many years, the Galleon was considered a lesser property than SH by many people that I know. Is it? I don't know. I've never stayed there. They have and they didn't consider it on a level with SH. Have the Galleon and Banyan's resale values increased? I have no idea. Can you provide some evidence of that? I'd like to see it - not because I don't believe you but just that I would like to see the information. It could be their resale values have increased because they were lower in the first place. Maybe it's because property values in Key West have gone up. Maybe it's because there has been less inventory there, therefore driving demand up, therefore driving the prices up. I don't know. There are a lot of variables that could cause their values to increase but honestly, no one should ever buy a timeshare thinking it's some kind of investment. A suppression of property values at SH? It's a timeshare - no one should be counting on an increase in property values.



I have stayed at both Galleon and Banyan. I also visit friends who own there every year.    The Galleon I think is in slightly a better location and IMO is equal or better in furnishings. Baynan is different in it is older very well maintained, and has mostly one bedroom units.  Simple comparison and math prove their fees are even lower than Galleon.   Why their maintenance fees are lower that the huge MVC, that gets us such great deal via thier purchasing power? (those are MVC words)  Better management.  No gouging for stock holder profits.

An yes I admit I want MVC out. Their little fees add up, Portfolio is undermining legacy owners, and there is zero value to be gained by using the brand Hyatt. among so much more.


----------



## Kal

ScoopKona said:


> Key West native chiming in.
> 
> This simply isn't true. Hyatt isn't subsidizing insurance. And the cost is well known to literally everyone because there is only one company which will insure property in the Florida Keys -- Citizen's Insurance, which is a quasi-government agency.
> 
> Everyone pays the same rates in the Keys. And yes, they're ridiculous. But they're spread out over 52 owners per unit. Your insurance costs aren't going ANYWHERE with a change of management. Not happening. Forget that bit of calculus because it doesn't apply.


And Hyatt adds on another 12% on top of the premium.  So what is Hyatt's level of effort to write a payment check once a year?  Include the cost of the stamp.


----------



## alameda94501

JanT said:


> I'm glad to see that someone else is willing to admit the main reasons behind the push to remove MVC. It's taken awhile to get that out there in the open. It's not really all the little fees supposedly bugging the owners. It's really the desire to push out MVC, so they stop acquiring weeks, so HPP gets pushed out. The argument about short stays is really interesting. There is dissension about short night reservations but even weeks owners can book short stays (1, 2, 3, etc. nights). Isn't it not so much the short stays but in reality the fact that HPP gets priority over weeks owners in some cases? I get it - that pisses people off who bought weeks there but if the majority of weeks owners actually use their weeks and do nothing else, then what is the problem? I'm beginning to think it's really because short night stays by HPP or even Hyatt renting those nights out (which Marriott does with their properties, too) is bringing in "strangers" and SH loses that "family" feel generated by weeks owners who occupy every year or occupy significantly. Is that it? You sight excessive wear and tear from short term stays but how are short term stays by HPP people or even rentals causing any more wear and tear than a weeks owner who books a short stay? Or how about owners that don't even use their weeks, but rent them out instead? In general, many of them don't know who they're renting to really. They're renting to strangers who might put excessive wear on the resort. Look, I'm just trying to understand that whole "short stay issue" some people seem to be having.



I understand the sentiment, but what people usually don't understand about Portfolio is that there's no way to remove them.  Portfolio is a Hyatt-as-Developer (not Hyatt-as-Manager) idea that absorbed all their unsold inventory, which legacy HRC never had a right to.  From all the evidence I've seen from the Orange County Recorder, it's been pretty darn successful at salvaging the unsold unit-weeks at Sunset Harbor, Aspen, and other Hyatt branded properties.  With their unit-weeks, Portfolio has to obey all the rules that every unit-week owner has to follow, there are no secret advantages.

The short-stay issue could theoretically be a real issue in terms of possibly having seven 1-night stays instead of the traditional 3-part (2/3/4 night) stays, because you would need to send the maid service out more than twice as much (not sure why this would be more or less wear and tear than anyone else, but it's maid labor expenses.)  But I don't think anyone practically uses 1-night stays, at least for most of the resort locations.  And if everyone started using 1-night stays, Portfolio could mitigate that by internally constraining a week into three or fewer parts in terms of what's left on the portal (i.e. if someone takes a single night, then only display 3-night and 4-night options).  

If anyone would be hostile to Portfolio it would be Aspen, but Aspen keeps humming on the Portfolio portal.  

The idea of 'strangers' seems pretty far-fetched to me for a timeshare.  We go to Highlands Inn regularly and everyone still seems like a stranger there to me.  (Very friendly strangers... but strangers!)


----------



## GTLINZ

The HPP slice will not go away at Sunset Harbor , just as it has not at Aspen. This is about stopping the HPP growth before control is gained, which has been discussed in this thread. What has also been discussed in this thread is that halting ROFR  was part of the Aspen settlement in exchange that existing HPP rights will not be diminished. It seems reasonable that the same leverage will work for Sunset Harbor also.

The Galleon comparison is completely valid. If their management can run it with less MFs AND maintain far higher resale value, then why wouldn't Sunset owners want the same? I have stayed at both properties and the Galleon may have a marina and an amazing rooftop patio but they are not directly on Mallory square. I admit that losing access to the nearby Hyatt hotel gym would be a loss. But the difference in resale values is hard to explain.

I get that internal trading would be lost. But with rentals being so high for most owners, it is often not the best choice.

As an owner elsewhere who has traded into Sunset Harbor, them pulling out does not benefit me personally. But I have my popcorn ready, as suggested, to watch the show.


----------



## dioxide45

GTLINZ said:


> I get that internal trading would be lost. But with rentals being so high for most owners, it is often not the best choice.


I see many mention renting out their weeks but yet how HPP is bringing in riff raff? How is giving HRC the boot then promoting renting weeks improving at least one gripe that owners have with HPP? It seems that HSH owners don't care about the riff raff as long as they aren't staying there and they are making some cash on their rental?


----------



## alameda94501

GTLINZ said:


> The HPP slice will not go away at Sunset Harbor , just as it has not at Aspen. This is about stopping the HPP growth before control is gained, which has been discussed in this thread. What has also been discussed in this thread is that halting ROFR  was part of the Aspen settlement in exchange that existing HPP rights will not be diminished. It seems reasonable that the same leverage will work for Sunset Harbor also.



I don't have a dog in the fight, but I'm interested in how much difference terminating Hyatt-as-Manager and Hyatt-as-Club will actually accomplish the goals. 

I would hope that the Sunset Harbor board should have an actual answer to whether stopping Portfolio growth is 'reasonable', but a few things:

1.  I don't think control is an issue, if that's 50% of the unit-weeks.  We know that there are 40 units, so 40 x 51 = 2,040 unit weeks:





Portfolio originally took in 127 of those unit weeks:





And then added 95 unit weeks as of 2021, over the four years of ROFR:





That's a pretty slow roll to controlling 1020 unit-weeks.

2.  Aspen's Condominium Declaration had a stipulation that Hyatt's ROFR only existed until 2015 (for ten years), presumably to comply with Colorado Law:





There was no need for an agreement because Hyatt-as-Developer hasn't had ROFR for 7 years.  In my California addendum above, there were no further Aspen unit-weeks added, for example.



3.  Sunset Harbor's Condominium Declaration does not have a rights expiration (thanks @dioxide45 for posting it first), presumably because it wasn't required in Florida:





The important excerpt being here:  "_In the event an Owner desires to sell, transfer, assign or hypothecate his or her Unit or Unit Week and *for so long as the Developer has interests to sell in the Condominium*, the Developer shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the Unit or Unit Week under the same terms and conditions as are offered to or by a bona fide third party, including financing, *for so long as the Developer has any interests to sell in the Condominium.*" _(my emphasis)

4.  We know that Hyatt-as-Developer still "have interests to sell in the Condominium" even though they sold nearly all the unit-weeks to Hyatt-Portfolio in 2017, because they still execute on ROFR in 2022, per this post.



So while it may seem at first reasonable that terminating Hyatt-as-Manager and Hyatt-as-Club might get rid of Hyatt-as-Developer's ROFR, I think there's enough questions here in the Condominium Declaration and Hyatt-as-Developer's behavior in 2022 that, if I were on the Sunset Harbor BOD, I would want to provide membership a definitive legal answer on this question prior to vote.


----------



## alameda94501

dioxide45 said:


> I see many mention renting out their weeks but yet how HPP is bringing in riff raff? How is giving HRC the boot then promoting renting weeks improving at least one gripe that owners have with HPP? It seems that HSH owners don't care about the riff raff as long as they aren't staying there and they are making some cash on their rental?



Great question.  Especially since Portfolio people have spent around 10x more than a TUGger on the same number of points... aren't we the riff-raff?


----------



## GTLINZ

dioxide45 said:


> I see many mention renting out their weeks but yet how HPP is bringing in riff raff? How is giving HRC the boot then promoting renting weeks improving at least one gripe that owners have with HPP? It seems that HSH owners don't care about the riff raff as long as they aren't staying there and they are making some cash on their rental?



A lot of Hyatt owners  have been called rif raff by association in this thread - because a broad net was thrown    As an HRC owner, i make reservations using both HRC and HPP inventory - so i am guilty as charged.

Owner rentals tend to be full weeks. So I assume that if SH is apart from Hyatt, there would be less midweek stays because there would be no HRC trading out/back in. One could argue that it would likely be less stressfull on staff.  HPP would still be there - but it is a small percentage _at this time_.


----------



## ocdb8r

GTLINZ said:


> The Galleon comparison is completely valid. If their management can run it with less MFs AND maintain far higher resale value, then why wouldn't Sunset owners want the same? I have stayed at both properties and the Galleon may have a marina and an amazing rooftop patio but they are not directly on Mallory square.


I'm not sure it is a valid comparison.  The Galleon is a much more "dense" resort overall, with more units under a single roof/in a single building and less common space compared to the overall number of units.  In addition, it has the benefit of a lot of other commercial opportunities to supplement/offset maintenance fees.  SH can't offer any food/drink revenues (or rental revenues for an external to operate).  I think it's a no brainer that the Hyatt Club Fees are pure waste as far as overall maintenance fees go (for those who never trade)...and I think even for those that do, there are then reservation fees to be paid on top of that.  However, other than the Hyatt junk fees, not sure there is an enormous opportunity to lower maintenance costs at SH.  Regardless, I do believe maintenance fees play into resale prices quite a bit...smart buyers know the key to making a timeshare work financially is for the annual costs to be as reasonable as possible.  



GTLINZ said:


> I admit that losing access to the nearby Hyatt hotel gym would be a loss. But the difference in resale values is hard to explain.


I thought this was already lost - not sure if it is permanent or COVID related, but this has not been available for the last two years (including last month).


----------



## kwsunset

So how many tuned into the *webinar* that was hosted by *HRC?*  (Address was only to Sunset Harbor owners. ) They did have some answers for quite a few questions. I did hear one that asked " we voted, and now* want to change our vote,* as we didn't have all the information that we thought we needed".  Tells me someone voted with their wallets before they had all the info.  Also for those who did vote early, I question what was the rush, you had until July 13.   As for changing a vote, the answer was yes, you should have until the last day, (7-13)  before final count. Comparison was for  Hyatt issues such as  proxy votes, which can be changed before count deadline.


----------



## SteveinHNL

kwsunset said:


> So how many tuned into the *webinar* that was hosted by *HRC?*  (Address was only to Sunset Harbor owners. ) They did have some answers for quite a few questions. I did hear one that asked " we voted, and now* want to change our vote,* as we didn't have all the information that we thought we needed".  Tells me someone voted with their wallets before they had all the info.  Also for those who did vote early, I question what was the rush, you had until July 13.   As for changing a vote, the answer was yes, you should have until the last day, (7-13)  before final count. Comparison was for  Hyatt issues such as  proxy votes, which can be changed before count deadline.


Was it all fluff and patting themselves on the back, or was there some substantive info shared about owners' concerns and HRC responses?


----------



## rtp-resident

kwsunset said:


> So how many tuned into the *webinar* that was hosted by *HRC?*  (Address was only to Sunset Harbor owners. ) They did have some answers for quite a few questions. I did hear one that asked " we voted, and now* want to change our vote,* as we didn't have all the information that we thought we needed".  Tells me someone voted with their wallets before they had all the info.  Also for those who did vote early, I question what was the rush, you had until July 13.   As for changing a vote, the answer was yes, you should have until the last day, (7-13)  before final count. Comparison was for  Hyatt issues such as  proxy votes, which can be changed before count deadline.


A comment was made during the webinar around 200 owners had called in. Whether HRC was keeping a running tally of the number is unknown. However, one had to identify themselves and provide an email to gain access to the call.


----------



## AJCts411

rtp-resident said:


> A comment was made during the webinar around 200 owners had called in. Whether HRC was keeping a running tally of the number is unknown. However, one had to identify themselves and provide an email to gain access to the call.



Typically in these online meetings sites, the moderator (MVC) has many tools, main one is the ability to open the participants mics for questions/comments,  and the list of the emails/names of who called in and the total number.   Been on many of these calls where the participant list was made viewable to all participating by the moderator.


----------



## chrisbellows

rtp-resident said:


> A comment was made during the webinar around 200 owners had called in. Whether HRC was keeping a running tally of the number is unknown. However, one had to identify themselves and provide an email to gain access to the call.


FYI.    The town hall webinar was recorded and can be listened to now by clicking on the link provided to owners.


----------



## Emerson

The Sunset Harbor BOD’s effort to vote out MVW as the management company is dead in the water. Two board members have admitted as much!


----------



## Kal

I assume that's what Marilyn said.


----------



## alameda94501

Emerson said:


> The Sunset Harbor BOD’s effort to vote out MVW as the management company is dead in the water. Two board members have admitted as much!



Hi @Emerson - did they say why it's dead in the water?


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> I assume that's what Marilyn said.


Yes George


----------



## bizaro86

Emerson said:


> The Sunset Harbor BOD’s effort to vote out MVW as the management company is dead in the water. Two board members have admitted as much!



That actually strengthens the case for voting to leave imo. If it isn't going to actually happen the closer the vote the more leverage the BoD has with Hyatt to get issues addressed, without any of the potential downside of actually leaving.


----------



## HenryT

Emerson said:


> The Sunset Harbor BOD’s effort to vote out MVW as the management company is dead in the water. Two board members have admitted as much!


Not sure how they can make that statement when voting is still going on.

This reminds me of a tactic political organizations use to keep people from voting, "tell them there's no point and that the decision has already been made".


----------



## dioxide45

Emerson said:


> The Sunset Harbor BOD’s effort to vote out MVW as the management company is dead in the water. Two board members have admitted as much!


Well then, stick a fork in it....


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> The Sunset Harbor BOD’s effort to vote out MVW as the management company is dead in the water. Two board members have admitted as much!



Thats 2 votes, plus 155 from Marriott portfolio ownership.  still leaves about 2000 more votes.   On the other side of the coin, The MAJORITY of BOD passed the resolution...so lets get real.


----------



## Emerson

Trying to confirm that a SH director sent out an email over the weekend end that sheds new light on the vote. Will keep you posted.


----------



## AJCts411

HenryT said:


> Not sure how they can make that statement when voting is still going on.
> 
> This reminds me of a tactic political organizations use to keep people from voting, "tell them there's no point and that the decision has already been made".



Reality is this. The BOD met. They presented, discussed, reviewed and voted.  The take away is this, there was a thorough discussion as evidenced by a no vote.  The majority voted in support of the motion.  There are zero statements by whom ever the no vote was. As it should be.   Plenty of "he said she said" and "I heard" and conjecture.   A BOD memeber voted no. That's most certainly not surprising given different agendas and goals of individuals elected to the BOD.


----------



## AJCts411

Came across this article, found it interesting as it might add some context to the considerations and communications by the HSH BOD.  





__





						Legal Duties of Association Board Members
					






					www.asaecenter.org
				




This is not directed at any BOD member or poster.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> Reality is this. The BOD met. They presented, discussed, reviewed and voted.  The take away is this, there was a thorough discussion as evidenced by a no vote.  The majority voted in support of the motion.  There are zero statements by whom ever the no vote was. As it should be.   Plenty of "he said she said" and "I heard" and conjecture.   A BOD memeber voted no. That's most certainly not surprising given different agendas and goals of individuals elected to the BOD.


There have been numerous statements by M. Gordon as to why she voted no. Emails and phone calls!


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> There have been numerous statements by M. Gordon as to why she voted no. Emails and phone calls!


Never received a one.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> Never received a one.


Are you on her email list? It was our understanding that she sent an email explaining her vote to everyone on her list.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> Are you on her email list? It was our understanding that she sent an email explaining her vote to everyone on her list.


No idea if I'm on her list.  Owner...who receives  BOD emails and vote notices.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> No idea if I'm on her list.  Owner...who receives  BOD emails and vote notices.


She has her own email list of SH owners and has had it for years. It is not a BOD’s deal.


----------



## kwsunset

Emerson said:


> Trying to confirm that a SH director sent out an email over the weekend end that sheds new light on the vote. Will keep you posted.


Not sure who it was sent to. As we did not receive one. And they have a temporary GM (director) there as well. Where did you hear about it?   The last email we got was thanking us for attending the  "town hall".


----------



## IslandTime

Emerson said:


> She has her own email list of SH owners and has had it for years. It is not a BOD’s deal.



Why? We've been owners for 11 years and have never received an email from her.


----------



## JanT

I'm super sick with Covid right now and don't want to write my usual diatribe.  But, I'll say this - all this childish b.s. by some BOD members is ridiculous and needs to stop.  Either funneling borderline sensitive information to people who have come here to post about this topic and/or disguising themselves as someone else here and stirring this up?  VERY unprofessional.  Emailing select SH owners from a private email list? Just smacks of impropriety.  If those owners are her personal friends, that's one thing  It's quite another to have assembled a list of owners for other reasons and then using that to funnel information in the background.  I have serious qualms about some members of this current BOD.  There's been a lot of back door maneuvering in my opinion.  I'm about to go on a quest to vote this entire BOD out and start over.  I have zero patience for this kind of crap (as I said previously).  Shape the Hell up or get shipped out - that's how I'm looking at it.


----------



## jabberwocky

Emerson said:


> She has her own email list of SH owners and has had it for years. It is not a BOD’s deal.


If this is true and it is being used to undermine the official message from the board then I’m dumbfounded. This is very poor governance and behavior on the part of this board member.

If you cannot support the position of the board after a decision has been made the appropriate action is to resign.


----------



## Kal

So is it a problem to work the ropes trying to have it your way??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kal

IslandTime said:


> Why? We've been owners for 11 years and have never received an email from her.


It's Marilyn's own list.  You have to ask to be placed on the list.  It even includes people who are no longer Sunset Harbor owners.


----------



## RM@SH

Kal said:


> It's Marilyn's own list.  You have to ask to be placed on the list.  It even includes people who are no longer Sunset Harbor owners.



We received her email and she made it quite clear as to why the no vote.  Her reasoning is the same as many on this thread, not enough information, no options and no due diligence.


----------



## RM@SH

AJCts411 said:


> No idea if I'm on her list.  Owner...who receives  BOD emails and vote notices.


Email her. I am sure she will gladly add you to her list.  She only uses the list to send a log of owners requests to rent out, sell or purchase specific weeks at SH.


----------



## Emerson

RM@SH said:


> We received her email and she made it quite clear as to why the no vote.  Her reasoning is the same as many on this thread, not enough information, no options and no due diligence.


Bingo


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> Bingo


 Any yet there was a vote. The Majority voted in favor.  If a disgruntled BOD member can not accept this and works to undermine the BOD there is a clear abandonment of their responsibility to the BOD IMO.   If an individual wants to post, email in opposition to something, have at it.  But let's hear from the person rather than via third hand postings.


----------



## SteveinHNL

JanT said:


> I'm super sick with Covid right now and don't want to write my usual diatribe.  But, I'll say this - all this childish b.s. by some BOD members is ridiculous and needs to stop.  Either funneling borderline sensitive information to people who have come here to post about this topic and/or disguising themselves as someone else here and stirring this up?  VERY unprofessional.  Emailing select SH owners from a private email list? Just smacks of impropriety.  If those owners are her personal friends, that's one thing  It's quite another to have assembled a list of owners for other reasons and then using that to funnel information in the background.  I have serious qualms about some members of this current BOD.  There's been a lot of back door maneuvering in my opinion.  I'm about to go on a quest to vote this entire BOD out and start over.  I have zero patience for this kind of crap (as I said previously).  Shape the Hell up or get shipped out - that's how I'm looking at it.


JanT I hope you feel better soon!!


----------



## JanT

Awww....thanks SteveinHNL.  I appreciate it.  Still feeling rough right now.  Pretty sure I'd feel better if I was in HNL.  LoL  I still kick myself in the butt for not purchasing a condo at Ko'Olina when real estate was in the toilet there.  Ko'Olina is my happy place.  Spent 8 weeks at Marriott Ko'Olina in 2020 during Covid when it was quiet and peaceful.  Sigh......I miss it!  Enjoy parasdise!



SteveinHNL said:


> JanT I hope you feel better soon!!


----------



## dioxide45

Generally Marriott/HRC won't provide a list of owner contact information to individual board members in the name of "privacy".


----------



## JanT

It's no secret I'm not on board with this move from Hyatt/MVWC.  BUT....I am really unhappy with what appears to be some very questionable behavior and actions by this one board member.  As you said, if they want to oppose something then that's their right but step up, identify yourself, and speak for yourself.  Stop funneling info through a third person - have the guts to step up and lay out your argument.  BUT, they have to do that as an OWNER at SH - not as a BOD.  At this point in time, they are abandoning their responsibility to the BOD as AJCts411 has pointed out.  It's time for this person to resign from the BOD because based on what we're seeing here on TUG, it indicates they are most likely releasing proprietary information, in addition to using their access to BOD information and owner email information in a highly suspect manner as well.  



AJCts411 said:


> Any yet there was a vote. The Majority voted in favor.  If a disgruntled BOD member can not accept this and works to undermine the BOD there is a clear abandonment of their responsibility to the BOD IMO.   If an individual wants to post, email in opposition to something, have at it.  But let's hear from the person rather than via third hand postings.


----------



## JanT

There's been a lot of backdoor maneuvering in this mess - by more than one board member IMO.  But, this particular one has gone into some truly questionable behavior.  My guess is they have accumulated email addresses of SH through the years in different ways (sitting around the pool, questions emailed to them, etc.).  I don't know who holds the email addresses to send out annual MF invoices, notices, etc.  I would assume Hyatt and I can't imagine they would release that list to any individual BOD member due to exactly what you said - "privacy."  But, it wouldn't surprise me if the BOD has gotten the email addresses of many owners from some other means.



dioxide45 said:


> Generally Marriott/HRC won't provide a list of owner contact information to individual board members in the name of "privacy".


----------



## alameda94501

JanT said:


> There's been a lot of backdoor maneuvering in this mess - by more than one board member IMO.  But, this particular one has gone into some truly questionable behavior.  My guess is they have accumulated email addresses of SH through the years in different ways (sitting around the pool, questions emailed to them, etc.).  I don't know who holds the email addresses to send out annual MF invoices, notices, etc.  I would assume Hyatt and I can't imagine they would release that list to any individual BOD member due to exactly what you said - "privacy."  But, it wouldn't surprise me if the BOD has gotten the email addresses of many owners from some other means.



It's actually pretty tough to find those other means. I know board members in Carmel who would love to contact all members here, but it's not possible unless sent through Hyatt. In Sunset Harbor there are 2,040 unit weeks so that's a lot of sitting around the pool!!

Hope you feel better soon @JanT.


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> There's been a lot of backdoor maneuvering in this mess - by more than one board member IMO.  But, this particular one has gone into some truly questionable behavior.  My guess is they have accumulated email addresses of SH through the years in different ways (sitting around the pool, questions emailed to them, etc.).  I don't know who holds the email addresses to send out annual MF invoices, notices, etc.  I would assume Hyatt and I can't imagine they would release that list to any individual BOD member due to exactly what you said - "privacy."  But, it wouldn't surprise me if the BOD has gotten the email addresses of many owners from some other means.


In 2020, this BOD member sent out the full contact information for HSH owners.  It includes home address, email, home/work phone, and week/unit owned.  At the time I felt this was a mental vapor lock, but placing that action into the current activities, I'm not so sure.  This is NOT how a professional BOD member performs.  How should a casual HSH owner view all this?  I'm sure there are HSH owners who do not want that private information circulated.  The list included short of 2000 names so for some reason it was incomplete.

I'm sure there are viewers out there who would like to just take a quick look at the list.  Sorry, I do want to promulgate that mindless action.


----------



## alameda94501

Kal said:


> In 2020, this BOD member sent out the full contact information for HSH owners.  It includes home address, email, home/work phone, and week/unit owned.  At the time I felt this was a mental vapor lock, but placing that action into the current activities, I'm not so sure.  This is NOT how a professional BOD member performs.  How should a casual HSH owner view all this?  I'm sure there are HSH owners who do not want that private information circulated.  The list included short of 2000 names so for some reason it was incomplete.
> 
> I'm sure there are viewers out there who would like to just take a quick look at the list.  Sorry, I do want to promulgate that mindless action.



Wow. That's nuts. Well Portfolio owns 250 unitweeks so it's more like 1,800 owners.


----------



## GTLINZ

Kal said:


> I'm sure there are viewers out there who would like to just take a quick look at the list.  Sorry, I do want to promulgate that mindless action.



I now have to go look up the meaning of "promulgate".


----------



## alameda94501

When was Sunset Harbor developed? How long did it take before more than half of the unit weeks were sold? How long did it take before Hyatt didn't always control the majority of seats on the board like at Carmel and Pinon Pointe?


----------



## Kal

alameda94501 said:


> Wow. That's nuts. Well Portfolio owns 250 unitweeks so it's more like 1,800 owners.


Portfolio now owns about 160 unit weeks, so that might account for some of the shortfall. 1932 + 160 = 2092


----------



## SteveinHNL

JanT said:


> Awww....thanks SteveinHNL.  I appreciate it.  Still feeling rough right now.  Pretty sure I'd feel better if I was in HNL.  LoL  I still kick myself in the butt for not purchasing a condo at Ko'Olina when real estate was in the toilet there.  Ko'Olina is my happy place.  Spent 8 weeks at Marriott Ko'Olina in 2020 during Covid when it was quiet and peaceful.  Sigh......I miss it!  Enjoy parasdise!


 Oh my gosh I considered buying something in Ko’Olina in 2009-2010 too.  Those places were being sold in non-judicial foreclosures by the dozens.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> There's been a lot of backdoor maneuvering in this mess - by more than one board member IMO.



This is how things work in Key West. Best local government money can buy. And it's always been this way.


----------



## JanT

LoL  Of course.  And not changing.  Small towns are that way - everywhere.



ScoopKona said:


> This is how things work in Key West. Best local government money can buy. And it's always been this way.


----------



## JanT

Yes, they were.  Absolutely crazy times!  A property I could have bought for less than $400K is worth more than $1M now.  Ugh!



SteveinHNL said:


> Oh my gosh I considered buying something in Ko’Olina in 2009-2010 too.  Those places were being sold in non-judicial foreclosures by the dozens.


----------



## AJCts411

alameda94501 said:


> Wow. That's nuts. Well Portfolio owns 250 unitweeks so it's more like 1,800 owners.



No it's 155 unit weeks.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> LoL  Of course.  And not changing.  Small towns are that way - everywhere.



Not quite like Key West. The FBI doesn't swoop down upon most small towns and arrest most of the city government every 10-20 years. This happens so often we have a name for it: "A Bubba Bust." 

Everyone waits for the next big Bubba Bust to happen. Because it gets rid of the slimy, corrupt old weasels so we can replace them with slimy, corrupt younger weasels.


----------



## JanT

LoL  Well, that's true.  It's amazing what goes on down there.  Bunch of infidels!  HaHa!



ScoopKona said:


> Not quite like Key West. The FBI doesn't swoop down upon most small towns and arrest most of the city government every 10-20 years. This happens so often we have a name for it: "A Bubba Bust."
> 
> Everyone waits for the next big Bubba Bust to happen. Because it gets rid of the slimy, corrupt old weasels so we can replace them with slimy, corrupt younger weasels.


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> I'm super sick with Covid right now and don't want to write my usual diatribe.  But, I'll say this - all this childish b.s. by some BOD members is ridiculous and needs to stop.  Either funneling borderline sensitive information to people who have come here to post about this topic and/or disguising themselves as someone else here and stirring this up?  VERY unprofessional.  Emailing select SH owners from a private email list? Just smacks of impropriety.  If those owners are her personal friends, that's one thing  It's quite another to have assembled a list of owners for other reasons and then using that to funnel information in the background.  I have serious qualms about some members of this current BOD.  There's been a lot of back door maneuvering in my opinion.  I'm about to go on a quest to vote this entire BOD out and start over.  I have zero patience for this kind of crap (as I said previously).  Shape the Hell up or get shipped out - that's how I'm looking at it.


I am sick with Covid, too.  Also just want to let you know that the “list” is just a bunch of owners that request to sell, buy or rent from each other.  We were given a head’s up to the group long before we were owners at Sunset Harbor by Leidys, the then resort manager when I called to inquire about a rental.   The lady just does a service for owners and anyone can request to be on the list.  No need to bash her or to throw out the Board because of a misunderstanding.  Hope you get better soon.


----------



## JanT

ivywag,

Sorry to hear you're sick and sure hope you're back on your feet soon.  Covid is rough for sure.  That list might initially been for those purposes but it has been used for far beyond that now.  So yeah....still not happy.  I'm not particularly happy with ANY of the board at this point, so not just that one individual.  But, there has been use of proprietory information that should not have been utilized.  That could be a real legal issue for the BOD and Hyatt.  I'll stand on my recommendation that the member resign and I'll stand on my comment that it might be time to remove the entire BOD and start over.  There's too much that is suspect and mismanaged to just look the other way.  Feel better soon, TUGGER-friend!


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> ivywag,
> 
> Sorry to hear you're sick and sure hope you're back on your feet soon.  Covid is rough for sure.  That list might initially been for those purposes but it has been used for far beyond that now.  So yeah....still not happy.  I'm not particularly happy with ANY of the board at this point, so not just that one individual.  But, there has been use of proprietory information that should not have been utilized.  That could be a real legal issue for the BOD and Hyatt.  I'll stand on my recommendation that the member resign and I'll stand on my comment that it might be time to remove the entire BOD and start over.  There's too much that is suspect and mismanaged to just look the other way.  Feel better soon, TUGGER-friend!


So I need to bury "the list" in my off-shore Grand Cayman lock box and enter the witness protection program


----------



## GTLINZ

Kal said:


> So I need to bury "the list" in my off-shore Grand Cayman lock box and enter the witness protection program



Kal - I wonder how much it's worth to Emerson ....


----------



## JanT

You should.    I didn’t mean to make that so overly dramatic in terms of the board.  I just mean I think there has been some info that’s been shared that shouldn’t and could be an issue.  Maybe not.   



Kal said:


> So I need to bury "the list" in my off-shore Grand Cayman lock box and enter the witness protection program


----------



## RM@SH

JanT said:


> It's no secret I'm not on board with this move from Hyatt/MVWC.  BUT....I am really unhappy with what appears to be some very questionable behavior and actions by this one board member.  As you said, if they want to oppose something then that's their right but step up, identify yourself, and speak for yourself.  Stop funneling info through a third person - have the guts to step up and lay out your argument.  BUT, they have to do that as an OWNER at SH - not as a BOD.  At this point in time, they are abandoning their responsibility to the BOD as AJCts411 has pointed out.  It's time for this person to resign from the BOD because based on what we're seeing here on TUG, it indicates they are most likely releasing proprietary information, in addition to using their access to BOD information and owner email information in a highly suspect manner as well.


The board member has spoken up and made very clear as to why she voted no.  She sent the explanation to everyone who she personally had contact information for.
It is also well known that one board member resigned prior to the vote and one board member relinquished their responsibilities to be involved in this voting procedure.  Reading between the lines like EVERYONE is doing here, seemed to be a little strong arming at the BOD vote.  Unfortunately, nobody has facts.  Both those pushing for yes votes and those leaning towards no votes are all deciding 100% on speculation.  AND please, nobody quote question #11 as it says absolutely NOTHING.  As the one BOD said, give us information and options so we can make an educated decision.


----------



## RM@SH

ivywag said:


> I am sick with Covid, too.  Also just want to let you know that the “list” is just a bunch of owners that request to sell, buy or rent from each other.  We were given a head’s up to the group long before we were owners at Sunset Harbor by Leidys, the then resort manager when I called to inquire about a rental.   The lady just does a service for owners and anyone can request to be on the list.  No need to bash her or to throw out the Board because of a misunderstanding.  Hope you get better soon.


She is one very nice person and aims to be as helpful and transparent to owners as she can.  I cannot speak on her behalf but I am sure she would like very much to have a more complete list of owners she can share her buy, sell and rent list with.  She is the ONLY board member that anyone has heard from other than the one list of very vague answers we received.


----------



## RM@SH

Kal said:


> In 2020, this BOD member sent out the full contact information for HSH owners.  It includes home address, email, home/work phone, and week/unit owned.  At the time I felt this was a mental vapor lock, but placing that action into the current activities, I'm not so sure.  This is NOT how a professional BOD member performs.  How should a casual HSH owner view all this?  I'm sure there are HSH owners who do not want that private information circulated.  The list included short of 2000 names so for some reason it was incomplete.
> 
> I'm sure there are viewers out there who would like to just take a quick look at the list.  Sorry, I do want to promulgate that mindless action.


We would have to go back and see in our original agreements what our personal information is allowed to be used for.  I imagine it is stated somewhere but I have to agree that a Board member sending out that information is not very professional and I am sure there are at least some owners who would be quite upset if they knew their information was being openly shared.


----------



## Kal

If the BOD member wants to be fully transparent, she should welcome the opportunity to clarify the basis for providing full details of almost 2000 Sunset Harbor owners to anyone.  One could say it's only a specific list of owners interested in buying, selling or renting their unit.  Really?? 2000???  Me thinks that does not pass the sniff test.


----------



## amycurl

@JanT, I am so sorry to hear that you're battling a bad case of COVID. I hope you continue to rest and that you'll heal fully, without the long-haul symptoms that other TUGgers have faced. *big, virtual hugs*


----------



## Emerson

There is more than one SH board member that has one foot in both sides of the sand box!!!!


----------



## JanT

Don’t dance around it - name them.  I’m tired of all the innuendo; he said/she said/they did/ they didn’t.  Just spit it out and stop letting them hide.  If what you’re saying is true then expose them.  If it’s not, shame on you for saying that.



Emerson said:


> There is more than one SH board member that has one foot in both sides of the sand box!!!!


----------



## JanT

Thank you so much, amycurl!!  I’m resting and taking care of myself.  Actually, mobile med will be here in a few hours to do an IV infusion of an anti-viral.  The doctor wants to get it in my system before it gets too late in the process.  Has to be within 7 days of initial symptoms.  So, getting it done tonight - the only time they could fit me in.  Covid is on the rise here so they’re busy.


amycurl said:


> @JanT, I am so sorry to hear that you're battling a bad case of COVID. I hope you continue to rest and that you'll heal fully, without the long-haul symptoms that other TUGgers have faced. *big, virtual hugs*


----------



## Cropman

GTLINZ said:


> Kal - I wonder how much it's worth to Emerson ....


I’m betting Emerson has the list.


----------



## chrisbellows

RM@SH said:


> She is one very nice person and aims to be as helpful and transparent to owners as she can.  I cannot speak on her behalf but I am sure she would like very much to have a more complete list of owners she can share her buy, sell and rent list with.  She is the ONLY board member that anyone has heard from other than the one list of very vague answers we received.


Yes, she is a wonderful person and did not tell anyone how to vote.  She just gave her perspective as an owner and friend to many.    Each owner has his or her individual situation.  I appreciate the different views.


----------



## Ty1on

RM@SH said:


> We would have to go back and see in our original agreements what our personal information is allowed to be used for.  I imagine it is stated somewhere but I have to agree that a Board member sending out that information is not very professional and I am sure there are at least some owners who would be quite upset if they knew their information was being openly shared.



You don't need an agreement.  The BOD has a legal fiduciary duty to protect your PII.  Broadcasting your PII to thousands who have no legitimate need to know is an undebatable breach of that duty.


----------



## Kal

Ty1on said:


> You don't need an agreement.  The BOD has a legal fiduciary duty to protect your PII.  Broadcasting your PII to thousands who have no legitimate need to know is an undebatable breach of that duty.


The minute I received that information, there was no doubt it was absolutely a mindless action.  There have been times when I wanted to contact a fellow owner, but lost the email/phone number.  I asked Hyatt and they said absolutely NO!  Owner information is confidential and they could be sued if released.  They used an example where a husband purchased a unit in his name, without his wife's knowledge.  Then, thru Hyatt, she became aware of that ownership.  Apparently, the husband was using the unit for some unstated activities?

IMHO, that BOD member could be subjected to personal liability claims as an owner.


----------



## dioxide45

Ty1on said:


> You don't need an agreement.  The BOD has a legal fiduciary duty to protect your PII.  Broadcasting your PII to thousands who have no legitimate need to know is an undebatable breach of that duty.


I don't beleive an email address is considered PII.


----------



## Ty1on

dioxide45 said:


> I don't beleive an email address is considered PII.



https://www.dol.gov/general/ppii

PII is defined as information: (i) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, social security number or other identifying number or code, telephone number, *email address*, etc.) or (ii) by which an agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. (These data elements may include a combination of gender, race, birth date, geographic indicator, and other descriptors). Additionally, information permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual is the same as personally identifiable information. This information can be maintained in either paper, electronic or other media.


----------



## dioxide45

Ty1on said:


> https://www.dol.gov/general/ppii
> 
> PII is defined as information: (i) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, social security number or other identifying number or code, telephone number, *email address*, etc.) or (ii) by which an agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. (These data elements may include a combination of gender, race, birth date, geographic indicator, and other descriptors). Additionally, information permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual is the same as personally identifiable information. This information can be maintained in either paper, electronic or other media.


I stand corrected.

Is the board member who created such a list of emails from regular contact of owners outside the duties as a board member in violation of anything? When the emails were sent, were the emails BCC'd or just in the To line? Was anyone's email exposed to another person? Just because one received the email, doesn't mean everyone saw that address.


----------



## Kal

For this BOD member, there are two lists.  One is for owners interested in selling, renting or buying a unit.  To get on the list the owner just supplies their email address and name.  The other list is a major compilation of contact information including week & unit owned.  The content had to originate from HRC records.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> For this BOD member, there are two lists.  One is for owners interested in selling, renting or buying a unit.  To get on the list the owner just supplies their email address and name.  The other list is a major compilation of contact information including week & unit owned.  The content had to originate from HRC records.


Thanks. G.


----------



## JanT

Wow.....that is a serious breach of trust to have information obtained from HRC records released to more than 2000 SH owners.  And almost certainly a huge legal issue for the board member and the BOD should anyone want to pursue a course of action against them for it.



Kal said:


> For this BOD member, there are two lists.  One is for owners interested in selling, renting or buying a unit.  To get on the list the owner just supplies their email address and name.  The other list is a major compilation of contact information including week & unit owned.  The content had to originate from HRC records.


----------



## Emerson

This whole deal is seriously getting out of control with one disaster after another. The Sunset Harbor BOD should immediately call off this vote and enter into serious negotiations with the management company on how to move forward. The longer they wait the more difficult it will be to get an outcome favorable to the ownership!


----------



## dayooper

Emerson said:


> This whole deal is seriously getting out of control with one disaster after another. The Sunset Harbor BOD should immediately call off this vote and enter into serious negotiations with the management company on how to move forward. The longer they wait the more difficult it will be to get an outcome favorable to the ownership!



Why would MVC negotiate with the BOD? If they change any of their terms, all the other properties will want to negotiate. It’s a precedent they do not want to set. The longer this takes, the more deeds they can take back via ROFR weakening the BOD position. From this outsiders position, it’s now or never.

I do agree this has been a disaster, but it seems that is what it’s meant to be. This has all the feels of a political mudslinging, put everything into doubt type of situation. I’m not saying these aren’t valid concerns, but there is hardly ever a true cut and dried decision when there are so many different parties with interest.


----------



## jabberwocky

Emerson said:


> This whole deal is seriously getting out of control with one disaster after another. The Sunset Harbor BOD should immediately call off this vote and enter into serious negotiations with the management company on how to move forward. The longer they wait the more difficult it will be to get an outcome favorable to the ownership!


Doesn’t it take two parties to negotiate at a minimum? Have we seen any indication that MVC is willing to negotiate anything of substance with the board?

Canceling the vote would remove any and all leverage the board has at this point. MVC could come to the table with something reasonable at which point the vote could be cancelled (ie perhaps MVC canceling the increase in the MF percentage).


----------



## Emerson

jabberwocky said:


> Doesn’t it take two parties to negotiate at a minimum? Have we seen any indication that MVC is willing to negotiate anything of substance with the board?
> 
> Canceling the vote would remove any and all leverage the board has at this point. MVC could come to the table with something reasonable at which point the vote could be cancelled (ie perhaps MVC canceling the increase in the MF percentage).


The BOD doesn’t have any leverage, but if they canceled the vote it would be an act of good faith. There is no way this thing passes! The board knows it and MVW knows it! I know that there are some SH owners that are holding our hope, but that’s all it is.


----------



## RM@SH

dioxide45 said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> Is the board member who created such a list of emails from regular contact of owners outside the duties as a board member in violation of anything? When the emails were sent, were the emails BCC'd or just in the To line? Was anyone's email exposed to another person? Just because one received the email, doesn't mean everyone saw that address.


The list that the one board member uses to send out rentals, purchase requests and sales is a list that was made up of owners who have requested to be on that list and everyone is BCC'd.


----------



## dayooper

Emerson said:


> The BOD doesn’t have any leverage, but if they canceled the vote it would be an act of good faith. There is no way this thing passes! The board knows it and MVW knows it! I know that there are some SH owners that are holding our hope, but that’s all it is.



The only thing MVC has to worry about is the bottom line. MVC is a corporation with a fiduciary duty to its stockholders and probably will not give in. If MVC will not give up anything, then what’s the point of stopping the vote. There is no good that can come from it. You stop the vote, you will lose everything. If you keep the vote, you stand a chance of winning. The odds might be slim, you still stand a chance. MVC hopes there is enough discord planted to keep the vote from passing.


----------



## jabberwocky

Emerson said:


> The BOD doesn’t have any leverage, but if they canceled the vote it would be an act of good faith. There is no way this thing passes! The board knows it and MVW knows it! I know that there are some SH owners that are holding our hope, but that’s all it is.


Then why do you spend so much time and energy here if this is sure to fail?


----------



## Emerson

dayooper said:


> The only thing MVC has to worry about is the bottom line. MVC is a corporation with a fiduciary duty to its stockholders and probably will not give in. If MVC will not give up anything, then what’s the point of stopping the vote. There is no good that can come from it. You stop the vote, you will lose everything. If you keep the vote, you stand a chance of winning. The odds might be slim, you still stand a chance. MVC hopes there is enough discord planted to keep the vote from passing.


----------



## Emerson

OKAY, hoping for a miracle. Let’s see what happens after July 14th. The board will have no leverage or credibility and will have to immediately begin working with the management company on the 2023 budget which will be a disaster for the owners. Prediction! There will be resignations, and there should be!


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> The BOD doesn’t have any leverage, but if they canceled the vote it would be an act of good faith. There is no way this thing passes! The board knows it and MVW knows it! I know that there are some SH owners that are holding our hope, but that’s all it is.



In information provided by the BOD indicates that MVC is not willing to negotiate in any way.  Thus the notice form MVC to increase thier take in management fees to 15%. thats a written stated fact received by the BOD from MVC.  The only leverage the BOD will gain is after a yes vote. A no vote dooms owners to continued control by MCV who's corporate goals are portfolio points, not owner week orientated.


----------



## dioxide45

Cancelling the vote would be silly at this point. There is no need for negotiations as the terms of the agreement are already in the management contract. Cancelling the vote will just mean the owners don't really get another chance at this, but I suspect that is what those who are asking for the vote to be cancelled really want.


----------



## AJCts411

copied from FB... Now if you think MCV has owners interests in mind...call me I have some water front swamp land I can sell you.  Imagine the favor MVC is providing owners...they should post that one in the Humor post.


----------



## RM@SH

I firmly believe that if the BOD would provide viable, specific and verified options to the current Hyatt situation/contract, there would be a considerable amount of additional yes votes.  So far all has been 100% speculation.  As I have said all too many times, I would love to vote yes for many of the reasons stated in this thread but my yes vote would be knowing what we are getting rid of but having no idea what we are getting.  Chances are, the alternatives would be better for the owners but we haven't been presented with any information/facts on those alternatives.  If anyone has some way of acquiring this information, it would greatly help convert a number of no's to yes's.


----------



## Kal

AJCts411 said:


> View attachment 59181
> 
> copied from FB... Now if you think MCV has owners interests in mind...call me I have some water front swamp land I can sell you.  Imagine the favor MVC is providing owners...they should post that one in the Humor post.


Hmmm, 4 of the "desirable weeks" are Week 35, @1400 points.  Portfolio owners can't wait to stay at Sunset Harbor in early September.


----------



## JanT

What information has been provided that indicates that MVC is unwilling to negotiate?  The BOD received correspondence from MVC that it's unwilling to negotiate?  I'd like to see that.

*A "no" vote doesn't doom owners to continued control*. A "no" vote means that for a period of time MVC will remain in control. There can ALWAYS be another vote taken to remove MVC. MVC cannot move fast enough to gain control of enough legacy weeks to ensure they get a stranglehold on SH. So, the current BOD (or a new BOD) moves forward, doing the work to solidify an argument for WHY MVC should be pushed out. They need to gather at least rough quotes from management companies where they can point to what the cost savings will be to move to an independent company; they need to provide insurance information; they need to lay out what the mismanagement by MVC has been; they need to provide a plan on how to move the resort forward under an independent management company. They haven't done any of those things - just keep beating the drum of, "MVC is bad. They are ruining the resort. They're ruining things with portfoloio points. We want them out. WE can make it all better and increase resale prices, etc. " Ok, HOW?????

This BOD hasn't done their work and yet, they (and others here) want owners to just blindly vote to push MVC out. Who in their right mind does that? Especially with no solid information that lends any credence to the BOD desire to get MVC out of the picture? There are things most certainly moving in the background behind this whole push to get MVC out and I'm not sure it has anything to do with protecting the vast majority of owners at SH. There appears to be some individual interests that are driving this vote to remove SH from under the auspices of MVC. No, there doesn't appear to be - it's obvious there are individual interests driving it. It doesn't have anything to do with bigger management fees, increasing MFs, or other fees. It's really about getting MVC out of the picture so portfolio points are no longer in the mix.

Again, at this point, I have to say that this BOD probably needs to be voted out and a new BOD voted in. There has been some serious misuse of proprietary information that almost certainly leaves the BOD and BOD individuals open to negative legal ramifications. There appears to be conflict of interest by at least one or more BOD members. It's probably time to wipe the slate clean and start over, getting some individuals on the BOD that are willing to do some true analysis of where things lie with the resort and if negotiations are possible with MVC. There is still a lot of leverage that could bring MVC into negotiations but they sure aren't going to happen with this mickey mouse movement. And, the argument that MVC isn't going to negotiate because if they make changes at SH means they have to make changes at other resorts is hogwash. Yes, it might mean that opens MVC up to other resorts requesting the same changes BUT they can do it now or they can watch the few remaining resorts, one-by-one over time leave the system. It will happen - especially since other resorts know that Aspen peeled off and should SH peel off, that's going to prove it can be done. MVC certainly isn't going to let that happen. They'll bring negotiations to the table.

The time for now is to lay the groundwork to show MVC why they do need to negotiate before they watch their system evaporate right before their eyes.  But, it's going to take a lot more work to get them to negotiate than what's been done by the current BOD.



AJCts411 said:


> In information provided by the BOD indicates that MVC is not willing to negotiate in any way.  Thus the notice form MVC to increase thier take in management fees to 15%. thats a written stated fact received by the BOD from MVC.  The only leverage the BOD will gain is after a yes vote. A no vote dooms owners to continued control by MCV who's corporate goals are portfolio points, not owner week orientated.


----------



## JanT

Well, as a weeks owner I can  tell you I'd stay in Key West in September.  LoL  I'd stay in Key West most anytime (excluding Spring Break).  But, you are right - 1400 point, Week 35's are not prime weeks and of course, MVC/Hyatt are buying up resale weeks to pump into the Portfolio Points program.  They must think people are really stupid.  Mostly people are just ignorant of things and/or complacent.  That's not a slam against anyone.  It's just an observation that many people just aren't interested in the inner workings of all this.  They just absorb higher MFs and fees as part of the cost of their vacation experience and aren't all that concerned. 

I'm not saying there isn't an argument to move SH out from under MVC BUT, someone is going to have to show me some solid evidence as to how that can be done in a manner that truly is beneficial to owners.  I haven't seen it yet.



Kal said:


> Hmmm, 4 of the "desirable weeks" are Week 35, @1400 points.  Portfolio owners can't wait to stay at Sunset Harbor in early September.


----------



## Emerson

JanT said:


> What information has been provided that indicates that MVC is unwilling to negotiate?  The BOD received correspondence from MVC that it's unwilling to negotiate?  I'd like to see that.
> 
> *A "no" vote doesn't doom owners to continued control*. A "no" vote means that for a period of time MVC will remain in control. There can ALWAYS be another vote taken to remove MVC. MVC cannot move fast enough to gain control of enough legacy weeks to ensure they get a stranglehold on SH. So, the current BOD (or a new BOD) moves forward, doing the work to solidify an argument for WHY MVC should be pushed out. They need to gather at least rough quotes from management companies where they can point to what the cost savings will be to move to an independent company; they need to provide insurance information; they need to lay out what the mismanagement by MVC has been; they need to provide a plan on how to move the resort forward under an independent management company. They haven't done any of those things - just keep beating the drum of, "MVC is bad. They are ruining the resort. They're ruining things with portfoloio points. We want them out. WE can make it all better and increase resale prices, etc. " Ok, HOW?????
> 
> This BOD hasn't done their work and yet, they (and others here) want owners to just blindly vote to push MVC out. Who in their right mind does that? Especially with no solid information that lends any credence to the BOD desire to get MVC out of the picture? There are things most certainly moving in the background behind this whole push to get MVC out and I'm not sure it has anything to do with protecting the vast majority of owners at SH. There appears to be some individual interests that are driving this vote to remove SH from under the auspices of MVC. No, there doesn't appear to be - it's obvious there are individual interests driving it. It doesn't have anything to do with bigger management fees, increasing MFs, or other fees. It's really about getting MVC out of the picture so portfolio points are no longer in the mix.
> 
> Again, at this point, I have to say that this BOD probably needs to be voted out and a new BOD voted in. There has been some serious misuse of proprietary information that almost certainly leaves the BOD and BOD individuals open to negative legal ramifications. There appears to be conflict of interest by at least one or more BOD members. It's probably time to wipe the slate clean and start over, getting some individuals on the BOD that are willing to do some true analysis of where things lie with the resort and if negotiations are possible with MVC. There is still a lot of leverage that could bring MVC into negotiations but they sure aren't going to happen with this mickey mouse movement. And, the argument that MVC isn't going to negotiate because if they make changes at SH means they have to make changes at other resorts is hogwash. Yes, it might mean that opens MVC up to other resorts requesting the same changes BUT they can do it now or they can watch the few remaining resorts, one-by-one over time leave the system. It will happen - especially since other resorts know that Aspen peeled off and should SH peel off, that's going to prove it can be done. MVC certainly isn't going to let that happen. They'll bring negotiations to the table.
> 
> The time for now is to lay the groundwork to show MVC why they do need to negotiate before they watch their system evaporate right before their eyes.  But, it's going to take a lot more work to get them to negotiate than what's been done by the current BOD.


Thanks for taking the time to put forth a very sensible argument. I agree with you 100%.


----------



## AJCts411

With a no vote does MVC Portfolio stop buying weeks? Very likely, it will accelerate ROFR while using a wait and see approach, week owner control will be lost due to the large majority required to stop MVC. 

I happened to be in my right mind and voted yes.  For many good reasons.  I am an owner, use my weeks, do not have portfolio points, pay 157.00 x 2 for nothing, and unlike portfolio special self treatment...I can not reserved both sides of MY owned week lockout as they can..., I understand why Sunset resale prices are depressed, can use common sense to compare our higher management fees to other comparable Key West resorts.  And detest being looked upon, scapegoated by portfolio sales schemes as the problem.  

And I know you and two others will hate this, read question 11, what speaks to the legalities of tending proposals with out a yes vote.  I also believe the BOD statements as presented and think that the no vote BOD is working to undermine the majority BOD.  In the way a kid stomps their feet when they can not get thier own way.    

Did anyone that suggest portfolio is NOT a reason supporting a yes vote..I have not read this anywhere, because it most certainly is a big factor in the issues of week owners are experiencing, along with excessive managements fees, low property values. Why did MVC stop selling weeks? To use ROFR, sell portfolio points and profit.  




JanT said:


> What information has been provided that indicates that MVC is unwilling to negotiate?  The BOD received correspondence from MVC that it's unwilling to negotiate?  I'd like to see that.
> 
> *A "no" vote doesn't doom owners to continued control*. A "no" vote means that for a period of time MVC will remain in control. There can ALWAYS be another vote taken to remove MVC. MVC cannot move fast enough to gain control of enough legacy weeks to ensure they get a stranglehold on SH. So, the current BOD (or a new BOD) moves forward, doing the work to solidify an argument for WHY MVC should be pushed out. They need to gather at least rough quotes from management companies where they can point to what the cost savings will be to move to an independent company; they need to provide insurance information; they need to lay out what the mismanagement by MVC has been; they need to provide a plan on how to move the resort forward under an independent management company. They haven't done any of those things - just keep beating the drum of, "MVC is bad. They are ruining the resort. They're ruining things with portfoloio points. We want them out. WE can make it all better and increase resale prices, etc. " Ok, HOW?????
> 
> This BOD hasn't done their work and yet, they (and others here) want owners to just blindly vote to push MVC out. Who in their right mind does that? Especially with no solid information that lends any credence to the BOD desire to get MVC out of the picture? There are things most certainly moving in the background behind this whole push to get MVC out and I'm not sure it has anything to do with protecting the vast majority of owners at SH. There appears to be some individual interests that are driving this vote to remove SH from under the auspices of MVC. No, there doesn't appear to be - it's obvious there are individual interests driving it. It doesn't have anything to do with bigger management fees, increasing MFs, or other fees. It's really about getting MVC out of the picture so portfolio points are no longer in the mix.
> 
> Again, at this point, I have to say that this BOD probably needs to be voted out and a new BOD voted in. There has been some serious misuse of proprietary information that almost certainly leaves the BOD and BOD individuals open to negative legal ramifications. There appears to be conflict of interest by at least one or more BOD members. It's probably time to wipe the slate clean and start over, getting some individuals on the BOD that are willing to do some true analysis of where things lie with the resort and if negotiations are possible with MVC. There is still a lot of leverage that could bring MVC into negotiations but they sure aren't going to happen with this mickey mouse movement. And, the argument that MVC isn't going to negotiate because if they make changes at SH means they have to make changes at other resorts is hogwash. Yes, it might mean that opens MVC up to other resorts requesting the same changes BUT they can do it now or they can watch the few remaining resorts, one-by-one over time leave the system. It will happen - especially since other resorts know that Aspen peeled off and should SH peel off, that's going to prove it can be done. MVC certainly isn't going to let that happen. They'll bring negotiations to the table.
> 
> The time for now is to lay the groundwork to show MVC why they do need to negotiate before they watch their system evaporate right before their eyes.  But, it's going to take a lot more work to get them to negotiate than what's been done by the current BOD.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> *A "no" vote doesn't doom owners to continued control*.



A no vote means it's going to be harder every time this comes up.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> With a no vote does MVC Portfolio stop buying weeks? Very likely, it will accelerate ROFR while using a wait and see approach, week owner control will be lost due to the large majority required to stop MVC.
> 
> I happened to be in my right mind and voted yes.  For many good reasons.  I am an owner, use my weeks, do not have portfolio points, pay 157.00 x 2 for nothing, and unlike portfolio special self treatment...I can not reserved both sides of MY owned week lockout as they can..., I understand why Sunset resale prices are depressed, can use common sense to compare our higher management fees to other comparable Key West resorts.  And detest being looked upon, scapegoated by portfolio sales schemes as the problem.
> 
> And I know you and two others will hate this, read question 11, what speaks to the legalities of tending proposals with out a yes vote.  I also believe the BOD statements as presented and think that the no vote BOD is working to undermine the majority BOD.  In the way a kid stomps their feet when they can not get thier own way.
> 
> Did anyone that suggest portfolio is NOT a reason supporting a yes vote..I have not read this anywhere, because it most certainly is a big factor in the issues of week owners are experiencing, along with excessive managements fees, low property values. Why did MVC stop selling weeks? To use ROFR, sell portfolio points and profit.


All this ROFR is a bunch of nonsense! Everyone that purchased a week at SH should have known it was in the documents. Nearly every timeshare company has the same language in their documents. You purchased a deeded week, no one can take it away from you. If the maintenance fees are too much for you, sell your week, and you won’t care who buys it. You can always go next door or down to Ocean Key Resort, and you might be lucky to get a room for $650.00 per night. I don’t know about you but $2000.00 in maintenance fees for a 2 bedroom condo in the best location in Key West for an entire week seems like a good deal.


----------



## travelhacker

AJCts411 said:


> View attachment 59181
> 
> copied from FB... Now if you think MCV has owners interests in mind...call me I have some water front swamp land I can sell you.  Imagine the favor MVC is providing owners...they should post that one in the Humor post.


What do you expect MVC to do?

If you had RoFR and were presented with desirable weeks at a price that you felt attractive, wouldn't you purchase them?


----------



## AJCts411

travelhacker said:


> What do you expect MVC to do?
> 
> If you had RoFR and were presented with desirable weeks at a price that you felt attractive, wouldn't you purchase them?


 That's sort  the point but you need to add the perspective that mvc are buying to to supply the portfolio scheme that is IMO in direct  conflict with week owners.   It is why the recent 27ish weeks that via ROFR for mvc.  Happy to let them sit there until the vote rumor got out at owners expense so to speak.  I'm not against corporate profits via portfolio but the deck is currently stacked against owners.


----------



## JanT

Yes, it is and the BOD should have thought about that before they attempted this at this point.  They can't provide virtually no solid information to owners and expect to get the result they want.  It was a huge error on their part.



ScoopKona said:


> A no vote means it's going to be harder every time this comes up.


----------



## JanT

And precisely why the BOD should have provided as much information as possible to owners.  They threw this vote out there with no information to back up what they want.  What in the world did they think was going to happen?



AJCts411 said:


> That's sort  the point but you need to add the perspective that mvc are buying to to supply the portfolio scheme that is IMO in direct  conflict with week owners.   It is why the recent 27ish weeks that via ROFR for mvc.  Happy to let them sit there until the vote rumor got out at owners expense so to speak.  I'm not against corporate profits via portfolio but the deck is currently stacked against owners.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> And precisely why the BOD should have provided as much information as possible to owners.  They threw this vote out there with no information to back up what they want.  What in the world did they think was going to happen?



I thought the information provided, all the way back in the first post, was both concise and gave owners everything they needed to make an informed decision.

Furthermore, it jibes with my experience working on the other side of the coin, for Hyatt. Sunset Harbor owners have been voicing these concerns for DECADES now.


----------



## Emerson

I suppose it is possible that the board thought they would get the votes needed and they were no doubt duped by the Aspen guy. Rookie mistakes!


----------



## kwsunset

JanT said:


> Well, as a weeks owner I can  tell you I'd stay in Key West in September.  LoL  I'd stay in Key West most anytime (excluding Spring Break).  But, you are right - 1400 point, Week 35's are not prime weeks and of course, MVC/Hyatt are buying up resale weeks to pump into the Portfolio Points program.  They must think people are really stupid.  Mostly people are just ignorant of things and/or complacent.  That's not a slam against anyone.  It's just an observation that many people just aren't interested in the inner workings of all this.  They just absorb higher MFs and fees as part of the cost of their vacation experience and aren't all that concerned.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't an argument to move SH out from under MVC BUT, someone is going to have to show me some solid evidence as to how that can be done in a manner that truly is beneficial to owners.  I haven't seen it yet.


I just hope there are enough of us, that feel that way, to  get a "no" vote.  For Now.


----------



## kwsunset

Emerson said:


> All this ROFR is a bunch of nonsense! Everyone that purchased a week at SH should have known it was in the documents. Nearly every timeshare company has the same language in their documents. You purchased a deeded week, no one can take it away from you. If the maintenance fees are too much for you, sell your week, and you won’t care who buys it. You can always go next door or down to Ocean Key Resort, and you might be lucky to get a room for $650.00 per night. I don’t know about you but $2000.00 in maintenance fees for a 2 bedroom condo in the best location in Key West for an entire week seems like a good deal.


The first time we rented a time share was in 1992, and it was $1000 for the week. That same week is now  $3800,  for the same 2b 2b townhouse,  pretty much like what we own at SH. We bought at SH in 1997 and knew about ROFR back then, not sure why that is a surprise to anyone.


----------



## kwsunset

JanT said:


> And precisely why the BOD should have provided as much information as possible to owners.  They threw this vote out there with no information to back up what they want.  What in the world did they think was going to happen?


When we received the letter about the vote, and the so called "terms", I had my brother read through it (he owns Marriott in Hilton Head). After he read through it twice, he said if it were his resort, and with so little information, he would have to vote "NO". As it was so one sided, without enough answers needed to make a decision.


----------



## Emerson

kwsunset said:


> When we received the letter about the vote, and the so called "terms", I had my brother read through it (he owns Marriott in Hilton Head). After he read through it twice, he said if it were his resort, and with so little information, he would have to vote "NO". As it was so one sided, without enough answers needed to make a decision.


Exactly!


----------



## JanT

AJCTs411,

You might be surprised at the wait and see approach that I suspect MVC will take. They're not going to start snapping up weeks until they feel like they're in danger of losing control. That's my opinion. They might pick up some weeks here and there but they're not going to ROFR everything in sight until they absolutely know they're in danger of losing SH. BUT, if they do start grabbing up weeks, then whom is responsible for that? Had they not been given a heads up in such a haphazard manner, it could have been prevented.

I think you're in your right mind. I do. My choice of words there was poor and I apologize to anyone that might have offended. Everyone has to weigh things in their own mind and make their own decision. If people feel comfortable voting "Yes" based on the information provided and their own individual situation, that is their right and I was wrong to make such a blanket statement. Can I blame that on my Covid? So, I apologize.

I've read question 11 and while the BOD could not put out a RFP, they could have done some general research and get some ideas of what an independent management company would charge. That's not soliciting a proposal. There are companies that will actually do a little legwork on these kinds of things. It's Key West - lots of back door maneuvering goes on there and they absolutely could have gotten some casual information that would have lended their ability to put together some generalized cost savings. They didn't do it because they didn't want to spend the money without knowing whether they had the vote to oust MVC. I know that and I'll leave it at that.

I absolutely agree with you that there is one board member stomping their feet like a child that's not getting their way. They've been egregious in some of their actions and should resign. They're not going to but the owners can certainly vote them out and should. And anyone who has shirked their duty here, removing themselves from what's on the table should be voted out as well.

You can choose to believe the BOD if you want. I've got enough information before me to say I think it would be best to start over with a new BOD. There is potentially ONE that I would give strong consideration to keeping because I think they are a little more reasonable and have a broader vision than it appears the rest of the BOD has. The current BOD has just made a mess of this thing and their reasons for moving foward without any sort of plan to present to owners has been irresponsible.

I'm not sure if I understand your last comment. I have heard several times that SH owners wants to limit access to SH by Portfolio Points. I agree some of the quirks of the PP are very beneficial to them and not to SH owners. There is room for a lot of improvement with MVC at the helm. If weeks owners virtually all use their weeks and never trade into other resorts, I'm not sure why they care if PP people are booking into SH. Except I have heard that they don't like the transient nature that is occuring at SH and they want to keep that family feel of weeks owners that occupy every year. I think that's probably the real driver in some of this. And are you telling me that because you have to pay $314 a year in fees that is a real issue for you? You probably spend that in a few meals eaten out in Key West. It doesn't take long for groceries, meals, etc. to add up down there.

I don't know that SH weeks are depressed.  I honestly haven't done a lot of research on it.  MF's are high - yep they are.  What are they at the Galleon?  Banyan? Coconut Beach?  Those resorts aren't even comparable to SH IMO.  Galleon could be based on the current state of SH (THAT needs to be taken care of).  But, $2K a week for a 2BR, full kitchen unit, fabulous location timeshare in Key West is pretty much a bargain price in my mind (basically $285 per night).  Show me where you can stay in Key West at that location for less than that.

Look, I don't like the failures of MVC and some of the fee situation.  I'd enterain a departure from them IF I was provided a plan by the SH BOD that proved to me it was in the best interest of owners.  The current argument holds no water.



AJCts411 said:


> With a no vote does MVC Portfolio stop buying weeks? Very likely, it will accelerate ROFR while using a wait and see approach, week owner control will be lost due to the large majority required to stop MVC.
> 
> I happened to be in my right mind and voted yes.  For many good reasons.  I am an owner, use my weeks, do not have portfolio points, pay 157.00 x 2 for nothing, and unlike portfolio special self treatment...I can not reserved both sides of MY owned week lockout as they can..., I understand why Sunset resale prices are depressed, can use common sense to compare our higher management fees to other comparable Key West resorts.  And detest being looked upon, scapegoated by portfolio sales schemes as the problem.
> 
> And I know you and two others will hate this, read question 11, what speaks to the legalities of tending proposals with out a yes vote.  I also believe the BOD statements as presented and think that the no vote BOD is working to undermine the majority BOD.  In the way a kid stomps their feet when they can not get thier own way.
> 
> Did anyone that suggest portfolio is NOT a reason supporting a yes vote..I have not read this anywhere, because it most certainly is a big factor in the issues of week owners are experiencing, along with excessive managements fees, low property values. Why did MVC stop selling weeks? To use ROFR, sell portfolio points and profit.


----------



## JanT

ScoopKona,

We must have read different things or maybe just have a vast difference of opinion.  But, you know I respect you in regards to Key West info.  I certainly know MVC isn't watching out for owners - they're watching out for themselves.  But, until I have some additional information in front of me that convinces me otherwise, I'm not going to support the move from them.  I don't like their b.s. either and it's time to hold their feet to the fire and see if we can't get some changs made.  If not, then it's a full on press to push them OUT!!  It can still be done even if this current vote is "No."  Just has to be done in a better manner.



ScoopKona said:


> I thought the information provided, all the way back in the first post, was both concise and gave owners everything they needed to make an informed decision.
> 
> Furthermore, it jibes with my experience working on the other side of the coin, for Hyatt. Sunset Harbor owners have been voicing these concerns for DECADES now.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> I don't like their b.s. either and it's time to hold their feet to the fire and see if we can't get some changs made.  If not, then it's a full on press to push them OUT!!  It can still be done even if this current vote is "No."  Just has to be done in a better manner.



The BOD has been asking for changes for YEARS. Management responds with "our way or the highway." This has been going on for years and years. 

There isn't going to be a better manner than what just happened. And now that MVC knows how close they are to losing control of yet another property, they're going to ROFR every week they can just for the votes.

It would not surprise me in the least if this is the owners' last chance to boot MVC and manage themselves.


----------



## Emerson

ScoopKona said:


> The BOD has been asking for changes for YEARS. Management responds with "our way or the highway." This has been going on for years and years.
> 
> There isn't going to be a better manner than what just happened. And now that MVC knows how close they are to losing control of yet another property, they're going to ROFR every week they can just for the votes.
> 
> It would not surprise me in the least if this is the owners' last chance to boot MVC and manage themselves.


I read your post with interest. It might interest you in that the BOD meeting minutes for the past 10 years do not support your claim. MVW, and it’s MVW incidentally, has been far from perfect but past boards have been equally bad. Sorry George! There most definitely is a path to move forward but it isn’t self management!


----------



## ivywag

I served as president of a homeowners’ board for many years.  We were advised by our management company to keep our Minutes as vague and minimal as possible.  Before hiring the management company we tried to put every little thing in the minutes so that the owners would know what was going on.  The management co put a big stop to that when they came on board! Too much liability.


----------



## AJCts411

What owner here voted for allowing portfolio...a points only system
...to be developed and sold now exclusively by Marriott.?  How many votes are required to change the club rules?  Don't matter how many, its arbitrary for the benifit of Marriot.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> What owner here voted for allowing portfolio...a points only system
> ...to be developed and sold now exclusively by Marriott.?  How many votes are required to change the club rules?  Don't matter how many, its arbitrary for the benifit of Marriot.


----------



## Emerson

Anyone heard how the vote is going to cancel the management company?


----------



## kwsunset

Emerson said:


> Anyone heard how the vote is going to cancel the management company?


Probably won't hear anything until all the votes are in. Deadline is July13, so after 7/14..


----------



## Bunk

A few comments after I've read the recent posts:

1.  I suspect that this issue has come to a head at this time because the management contract will be automatically renewed for another three years unless the Unit Owners vote to discharge the manager.  That may be the reason why the Board's felt compelled to make its decision at this time and why the Board may not  have the luxury to extend the time to make its decision.

2. The Management Agreement says that the managing agent fee shall be "up to an amount equal to 15% of the Association annual budget excluding reserves and taxes.   It appears that the  management feea  has been 12% and that the Managing Agent has now decided to raise its fee to 15%.  Although the agreement says that the maximum management fee is 15%, I'm not sure that the Managing Agent has the right to unilaterally raise that fee from 12% to 15% without the consent of the Board of Directors.

3.  I believe there has been discussion in TUG about Marriott Vacation Club adding reserves to the budget in calculating its management fee.  In other words it has been discussed that MVC bills a percentage of the budget including reserves.  Has anyone seen the language that covers how much money the managing agent is permitted to charge the various MVC time shares as a management fee.

4.  I have a question about Paragraph 5.5 of the management contract.  It states that the Developer shall pay net rental proceeds received during the Club Priority Period not to exceed 2 1/2% of common expenses and reserves.  Photos of the two pages of that Paragraph are attached.  Do you know what the purpose of that paragraph is and why it is limited to the Club Priority Period.  Also has the Developer been making any payments to Sunset Harbor?


----------



## alameda94501

Bunk said:


> A few comments after I've read the recent posts:
> 
> 1.  I suspect that this issue has come to a head at this time because the management contract will be automatically renewed for another three years unless the Unit Owners vote to discharge the manager.  That may be the reason why the Board's felt compelled to make its decision at this time and why the Board may not  have the luxury to extend the time to make its decision.
> 
> 2. The Management Agreement says that the managing agent fee shall be "up to an amount equal to 15% of the Association annual budget excluding reserves and taxes.   It appears that the  management feea  has been 12% and that the Managing Agent has now decided to raise its fee to 15%.  Although the agreement says that the maximum management fee is 15%, I'm not sure that the Managing Agent has the right to unilaterally raise that fee from 12% to 15% without the consent of the Board of Directors.
> 
> 3.  I believe there has been discussion in TUG about Marriott Vacation Club adding reserves to the budget in calculating its management fee.  In other words it has been discussed that MVC bills a percentage of the budget including reserves.  Has anyone seen the language that covers how much money the managing agent is permitted to charge the various MVC time shares as a management fee.
> 
> 4.  I have a question about Paragraph 5.5 of the management contract.  It states that the Developer shall pay net rental proceeds received during the Club Priority Period not to exceed 2 1/2% of common expenses and reserves.  Photos of the two pages of that Paragraph are attached.  Do you know what the purpose of that paragraph is and why it is limited to the Club Priority Period.  Also has the Developer been making any payments to Sunset Harbor?
> View attachment 59504
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 59503



Earlier in that document "Club Priority Period" should be defined, likely as LCUP (2mo-0mo). I think it's the same with any resort, Hyatt has the opportunity to make use of LCUP inventory for quick rentals or sales pitch opportunities, and they pay back the resorts.


----------



## Emerson

Just heard that the SH board has posted a special board meeting for this week  .  Canceling the vote?


----------



## vacationtime1

Emerson said:


> Just heard that the SH board has posted a special board meeting for this week  .  Canceling the vote?


A post such as this may discourage people from voting.  Was that your intent?


----------



## AJCts411

vacationtime1 said:


> A post such as this may discourage people from voting.  Was that your intent?



Maybe this NON-owner read this "rumor" from the BOD  questions email?

WE URGE ALL OWNERS TO VOTE! This is our property and we have a collective responsibility to decide what is in our collective best interest
That is why we have called the Special Meeting to be held on July 14th.


----------



## ivywag

Emerson said:


> Just heard that the SH board has posted a special board meeting for this week  .  Canceling the vote?


Best not to speculate—-especially since your other posts have revealed your opinion and you wouldn’t want to influence the vote


----------



## JanT

Well, based on info I received, the meeting on the 14th is purely to get the final report on the vote from the company handling the vote.  That’s it.  

i asked specifically when and where the meeting was going to be held because I was going to go. I was told it was a zoom meeting and only to get the results from the vote.
But, absolutely everyone should vote!! Apathy is unfortunately going to influence this vote.




AJCts411 said:


> Maybe this NON-owner read this "rumor" from the BOD  questions email?
> 
> WE URGE ALL OWNERS TO VOTE! This is our property and we have a collective responsibility to decide what is in our collective best interest
> That is why we have called the Special Meeting to be held on July 14th.


----------



## kwsunset

Just like the old saying, *"If you don't vote, you can't gripe"*, (about the out come).


----------



## Emerson

Emerson said:


> Just heard that the SH board has posted a special board meeting for this week  .  Canceling the vote?


I was just wondering why a meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday July 6th. Apparently all of a sudden.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> Maybe this NON-owner read this "rumor" from the BOD  questions email?
> 
> WE URGE ALL OWNERS TO VOTE! This is our property and we have a collective responsibility to decide what is in our collective best interest
> That is why we have called the Special Meeting to be held on July 14th.


This is not a rumor, it’s posted at Sunset Harbor.


----------



## RM@SH

Emerson said:


> This is not a rumor, it’s posted at Sunset Harbor.


Is it an open Zoom meeting or closed?


----------



## INCHWORM

Kal said:


> The minute I received that information, there was no doubt it was absolutely a mindless action.  There have been times when I wanted to contact a fellow owner, but lost the email/phone number.  I asked Hyatt and they said absolutely NO!  Owner information is confidential and they could be sued if released.  They used an example where a husband purchased a unit in his name, without his wife's knowledge.  Then, thru Hyatt, she became aware of that ownership.  Apparently, the husband was using the unit for some unstated activities?
> 
> IMHO, that BOD member could be subjected to personal liability claims as an owner.


Well, I'm glad you said "IMHO" because your opinion IS HUMBLE as well as WRONG!
That board member sent information to those of us who had previously given (freely and personally) our contact information directly to that board member for other reasons. That board member shared their stance as a fellow owner and I,  for one,  was EXTREMELY appreciative. So you can drop the "personal liability" crap, Kai


----------



## Kal

INCHWORM said:


> Well, I'm glad you said "IMHO" because your opinion IS HUMBLE as well as WRONG!
> That board member sent information to those of us who had previously given (freely and personally) our contact information directly to that board member for other reasons. That board member shared their stance as a fellow owner and I,  for one,  was EXTREMELY appreciative. So you can drop the "personal liability" crap, Kai


Try again.  Are you saying almost 2000 owners gave her all that personal information?  That did NOT happen.  I know MANY owners who did not give her that personal information (e.g. home phone number, address, week/unit owned) and never would.  I am one of the many on that 2000 names list and I have NEVER given it to her.  However, you obviously are confused in those who gave her their email address regarding interest in renting, buying and selling.  That is a short list, not the 2000 names list.  IF you are a HSH owner, please give me your name and I will tell you your address and the week/unit owned.  BTW, I'm not holding my breath.

I would suggest we hear it directly from the BOD member rather than hide behind the WORM.


----------



## Emerson

RM@SH said:


> Is it an open Zoom meeting or closed?


I don’t know. I was informed that the board meeting is posted at the lobby at Sunset Harbor With no details Other than date and time.


----------



## kwsunset

Emerson said:


> I don’t know. I was informed that the board meeting is posted at the lobby at Sunset Harbor With no details Other than date and time.


Great place to post an announcement, there are probably only a handful that will see it.  Be nice if someone there would take a picture of it,   and post that.


----------



## dioxide45

kwsunset said:


> Great place to post an announcement, there are probably only a handful that will see it.  Be nice if someone there would take a picture of it,   and post that.


Posting it at the resort is a requirement under Florida law and they usually only do the minimum when they really don't want a lot of people to know about it.


----------



## Emerson

dioxide45 said:


> Posting it at the resort is a requirement under Florida law and they usually only do the minimum when they really don't want a lot of people to know about it.


Exactly. No mention as to what is on the agenda however an owner at SH who has a good board member contact claims that this is a last ditch effort to get the entire board on the same page going into the last week of voting. Apparently there’s major disagreements amongst board members about the meeting that authorized the vote to terminate the management contract. This whole thing is a complete disaster!


----------



## RM@SH

I have confirmed that there is in fact a board meeting today.  It is apparently just a phone in meeting but I have no idea of the agenda.


----------



## RM@SH

Kal said:


> Try again.  Are you saying almost 2000 owners gave her all that personal information?  That did NOT happen.  I know MANY owners who did not give her that personal information (e.g. home phone number, address, week/unit owned) and never would.  I am one of the many on that 2000 names list and I have NEVER given it to her.  However, you obviously are confused in those who gave her their email address regarding interest in renting, buying and selling.  That is a short list, not the 2000 names list.  IF you are a HSH owner, please give me your name and I will tell you your address and the week/unit owned.  BTW, I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> I would suggest we hear it directly from the BOD member rather than hide behind the WORM.


The list that one board member uses to send out requests to rent, sell or buy is not a very big list from what I gather.  It is just those emails provided by various owners who wish to have those types of updates.  We provided our email and requested to be on the list when we were staying at SH earlier this year.  If a fellow owner hadn't mentioned it to us, we wouldn't have known it existed.


----------



## Emerson

RM@SH said:


> I have confirmed that there is in fact a board meeting today.  It is apparently just a phone in meeting but I have no idea of the agenda.


Cleanup in aisle 1. That’s the agenda!


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> Cleanup in aisle 1. That’s the agenda!



Maybe, cleaning up the BOD member acting as a BOD member outside their legal responsibilities?  No idea...just thought I'd join in the mud sliging as three new TUG members have.


----------



## GTLINZ

Don't pigs love mud ?


----------



## RM@SH

Emerson said:


> Exactly. No mention as to what is on the agenda however an owner at SH who has a good board member contact claims that this is a last ditch effort to get the entire board on the same page going into the last week of voting. Apparently there’s major disagreements amongst board members about the meeting that authorized the vote to terminate the management contract. This whole thing is a complete disaster!


I totally agree with the disaster part.  Feel like my thoughts are being pulled both ways.  With more information would sure make the decision much easier.  I feel so many of us are so close to being on the same page yet that "information" part seems to be terribly dividing us.


----------



## ivywag

RM@SH said:


> I totally agree with the disaster part.  Feel like my thoughts are being pulled both ways.  With more information would sure make the decision much easier.  I feel so many of us are so close to being on the same page yet that "information" part seems to be terribly dividing us.


I think that was the intention of many of these posts.


----------



## Lingber

Did the board meet? Any update on what the agenda was? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Emerson

Lingber said:


> Did the board meet? Any update on what the agenda was?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, the board met Wednesday. We haven’t been able to get any real information yet except that the meeting was very contentious. The vote continues and ends next week. We have been promised details on the meeting and we will post as soon as we get them.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Yes, the board met Wednesday. We haven’t been able to get any real information yet except that the meeting was very contentious. The vote continues and ends next week. We have been promised details on the meeting and we will post as soon as we get them.


Thank you BOD member hiding behind a non-HSH owner mouth piece.


----------



## bizaro86

RM@SH said:


> I totally agree with the disaster part.  Feel like my thoughts are being pulled both ways.  With more information would sure make the decision much easier.  I feel so many of us are so close to being on the same page yet that "information" part seems to be terribly dividing us.



One strategy often used in disinformation campaigns is to spread FUD, which stands for "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt."

It doesn't require information, simply innuendo, hypotheticals, and generally "what if" type situations.


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> Thank you BOD member hiding behind a non-HSH owner mouth piece.


No question certain BOD member or members are hiding behind something, maybe it’s just the truth,but it’s not what you think!


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> Thank you BOD member hiding behind a non-HSH owner mouth piece.


Incidentally, your guess is very wrong!


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Incidentally, your guess is very wrong!


Sure, you betcha!


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> Sure, you betcha!


Okay George


----------



## Emerson

Still no official details on the board meeting last Wednesday. However, if what we are hearing, from Sunset Harbor owners that have good board contacts, is anyway near accurate all we can say is WOW! Let’s hope that the real truth will come out before this board crosses the rubicon and the SH owners pay a huge price!


----------



## ScoopKona

Emerson said:


> Let’s hope that the real truth will come out before this board crosses the rubicon and the SH owners pay a huge price!



The "huge price" is the management fees, and allowing the property to deteriorate. MVC clearly doesn't care about anything other than getting current owners to "Hyattize" their points.


----------



## JanT

Well, what are those owners with board contacts saying happened at the meeting?  Sounds “explosive.”  Please share what you’re hearing.




Emerson said:


> Still no official details on the board meeting last Wednesday. However, if what we are hearing, from Sunset Harbor owners that have good board contacts, is anyway near accurate all we can say is WOW! Let’s hope that the real truth will come out before this board crosses the rubicon and the SH owners pay a huge price!


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> Well, what are those owners with board contacts saying happened at the meeting?  Sounds “explosive.”  Please share what you’re hearing.


Probably one BOD member stomping feet and having a tantrum.


----------



## ivywag

Emerson said:


> Still no official details on the board meeting last Wednesday. However, if what we are hearing, from Sunset Harbor owners that have good board contacts, is anyway near accurate all we can say is WOW! Let’s hope that the real truth will come out before this board crosses the rubicon and the SH owners pay a huge price!


This reminds me of media reports that quote “unidentified sources“ without any real facts. Anyone can put out such information, in this case attempting to sway the vote. If you or someone else has information that is accurate, then you or the “sources” need to identify themselves in order to have any credibility. Was this an executive session of the board?  If so, the discussions are private to board members only and “owners that have good board contacts” should not be privy to anything that happened at the meeting.


----------



## JanT

This whole "insider information" spiel is getting really old.  People who post things like that and then provide absolutely no content are suspect at best.  I should have insisted on having the information to call into the meeting myself.  Board meetings (unless their executive meetings) are open to owners.  It would have been very interesting.  



Kal said:


> Probably one BOD member stomping feet and having a tantrum.


----------



## ArizonaSun4Fun

Does it really matter to the rest of the HRC members if Sunset Harbor leaves Hyatt?  Most of their owners use their weeks, or rent them.  It really has little impact on the rest of us.  In fact, maybe MVC will be a little less greedy with their management fee increases if Hyatt properties keep leaving their management.


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> This whole "insider information" spiel is getting really old.  People who post things like that and then provide absolutely no content are suspect at best.  I should have insisted on having the information to call into the meeting myself.  Board meetings (unless their executive meetings) are open to owners.  It would have been very interesting.


We need to get *Hercule Poirot* on this.  He is not a HSH owner but probably could provide significantly more information than what we are seeing from TUG posters who just recently crawled out of the woodwork.


----------



## ScoopKona

ArizonaSun4Fun said:


> Does it really matter to the rest of the HRC members if Sunset Harbor leaves Hyatt?  Most of their owners use their weeks, or rent them.  It really has little impact on the rest of us.  In fact, maybe MVC will be a little less greedy with their management fee increases if Hyatt properties keep leaving their management.



Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner.

No, it doesn't affect other Hyatt owners. And the only HSH owners it affects are the ones who trade their week often. And that is a very, very low percentage indeed.

If the vote is yes/yes, who loses? Marriott Vacation Club.

What do 95% of all the new members posting on this thread and this thread only have in common? They are toeing a corporate line which benefits MVC. It is utterly transparent. But they're clearly hoping that if they get enough new users saying the same things often enough, they can push their thumb on the scale _just enough_ to affect the vote. Then they'll ROFR every week they can to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Their portfolio program allows them to sell the same resort twice -- and that's better for their bottom line than actually opening new resorts. Anyone who wants to see HRC keep chugging along as it has been should be in favor of a yes/yes vote. It may just keep MVC from running HRC into the ground.


----------



## Kal

_[Moderator Note: Content deleted. A reminder from the TUG Rules -

*Be Courteous*
As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!] <-- SueDonJ_


----------



## SueDonJ

As just another TUGger it occurs to me that we've seen this thing happen with other threads about contentious BOD decisions and the board members who are involved. It's not unusual at all for these types of threads to invite a lot of participation from new TUGgers, which makes sense when you consider that it's a natural reaction for people to do google searches when they get letters/emails telling them something big is happening.

If I were a Sunset Harbor owner I'd also be very concerned about what's happening there, and I'd be one of the owners who would join a discussion to say that certain board members are acting in ways that don't appear to be legally sound and/or aren't helping the situation. I'm not saying that to put myself into a situation that has nothing to do with me, but only to point out why every new TUGger you're seeing shouldn't be automatically accused of being an undercover agent with an agenda.


----------



## ScoopKona

SueDonJ said:


> but only to point out why every new TUGger you're seeing shouldn't be automatically accused of being an undercover agent with an agenda.



I don't believe this for a minute. It would be one thing if all the newcomers had different opinions. But when every single one of them posts as if they're typing dictation, my bull[excrement] alarm goes off the scale.

There is simply no way all these people have the exact same opinion. That isn't how humans work. There are people on this thread whose opinions I disagree with. But I would never accuse them of being a corporate mouthpiece because they write honestly and with conviction. Not so the Johnny-Come-Latelies, all with the exact same talking points.


----------



## ivywag

I don’t understand how anyone can say that these board members are hampering anything.  We have received all of the communications from the board and they have simply given us their recommendations.  That is their job—to recommend what they consider is best for the owners. We don’t know any of them, but just don’t like to see them maligned for simply doing what they are supposed to do. Remember that these are VOLUNTEER positions and we’re lucky to have people willing to serve and take all of this flack.  I don’t see that MVC has done any favors for Sunset Harbor during their tenure.  The dues are high and the units are badly in need of renovation. Just take a look at the online reviews. Other than the location, they’re not very good.  We have never been fans of the Marriott properties (too large and cookie cutter)  which is why we bought Hyatt 22 years ago. But, the Hyatt product that we bought is not the same now and is likely to be further diluted or sold yet again.  So, why not give this board the benefit of the doubt that they are looking after the best interests of the owners?


----------



## vacationtime1

SueDonJ said:


> As just another TUGger it occurs to me that we've seen this thing happen with other threads about contentious BOD decisions and the board members who are involved. It's not unusual at all for these types of threads to invite a lot of participation from new TUGgers, which makes sense when you consider that it's a natural reaction for people to do google searches when they get letters/emails telling them something big is happening.
> 
> If I were a Sunset Harbor owner I'd also be very concerned about what's happening there, and I'd be one of the owners who would join a discussion to say that certain board members are acting in ways that don't appear to be legally sound and/or aren't helping the situation. I'm not saying that to put myself into a situation that has nothing to do with me, but only to point out why every new TUGger you're seeing shouldn't be automatically accused of being an undercover agent with an agenda.


I agree with the underlying premise -- that owners do web searches when something big is afoot.  But after 750+ posts, the issue here is:

*All* of the new voices support Marriott down the line.
The new voices sound just as shill-ish as those new voices who come here to tout timeshare exit companies.
Many of the new voices don't even own at SH.
Many of the new voices' posts are based on innuendo, not facts ("we hear that a board member . . . ." is _*not *_a fact, especially when neither the source nor the board member is disclosed).  They make up the innuendo as they go along.


----------



## dioxide45

vacationtime1 said:


> I agree with the underlying premise -- that owners do web searches when something big is afoot.  But after 750+ posts, the issue here is:
> 
> *All* of the new voices support Marriott down the line.
> The new voices sound just as shill-ish as those new voices who come here to tout timeshare exit companies.
> Many of the new voices don't even own at SH.
> Many of the new voices' posts are based on innuendo, not facts ("we hear that a board member . . . ." is _*not *_a fact, especially when neither the source nor the board member is disclosed).  They make up the innuendo as they go along.


None of the new voices have opted to become paid TUG members. Not that it is required, but you would think at least one or two would have done so over the time of this discussion. Once the vote is over, will they continue to stick around?


----------



## SUN-N-Fun

dioxide45 said:


> None of the new voices have opted to become paid TUG members. Not that it is required, but you would think at least one or two would have done so over the time of this discussion. Once the vote is over, will they continue to stick around?


As a new member who also owns at HSH I haven’t a clue what becoming a member entails or the costs as such? Nor do I have any agenda outside of buying an additional unit there, but am certainly paying attention to the comments ;-)


----------



## SueDonJ

dioxide45 said:


> None of the new voices have opted to become paid TUG members. Not that it is required, but you would think at least one or two would have done so over the time of this discussion. Once the vote is over, will they continue to stick around?


Think of the monster thread on the Marriott forum that went on for over a year about similar BOD-instigated issues at one resort. It ended with those who learned something valuable from the thread eventually joining TUG, and, the disappearance of those whose only purpose in participating was to sway others to join their poorly-planned and poorly-executed effort against Marriott. And consider that it was an effort that racked up fees for all of the owners when Marriott insisted that every challenge be met with every legal i dotted and every legal t crossed (which is IMO how these things should be done by all concerned.)

The thing in this thread that rings alarm bells for me is the mention of one board member taking charge against the manager and without unanimous support from every other member, and in doing so possibly misusing his access to the ownership list such that even some who had never solicited information from him/her personally were contacted. No BOD member that's acting ethically misuses protected contact information that blatantly. No ethical board allows for so little for/against information to be released when a major issue is being considered, knowing full well that a rumor mill will develop immediately. In the immediacy I think it would be worthwhile to know who called the Special Meeting last week, why it was called and what was its outcome. It could have been either called by that one member to educate the other members, or, called by the other members to rein him/her in. Either way it's important for the owners to know exactly what's happening within the BOD, now and going forward.

There, I'm done. My hope for all the owners at Sunset Harbor is that you'll eventually learn all that you need to know to determine for yourselves whether you want to remain owners and enjoy the resort. Good luck!


----------



## Cropman

Ok, I’m confused. This is from an email I received today from Sunset Harbor Resort that included previous board minutes:

Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Resort Agreement should be terminated or the managing entity of the Club should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative.

If all Directors voted for it, why did a lot of us get a letter from a board member saying that person was voting no?  As a BOD shouldn’t that person have voted no on the proposal at the meeting?  Geez, and I thought it was just politicians who played both sides of the fence.


----------



## Kal

Cropman said:


> ... carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative...


Maybe that same BOD member was not present??


----------



## JanT

That would seem to be the case but weren't we told previously that there was a board member that voted "No?"



Kal said:


> Maybe that same BOD member was not present??


----------



## Cropman

Kal said:


> Maybe that same BOD member was not present??


According to the minutes, that board member was there.


----------



## Emerson

vacationtime1 said:


> I agree with the underlying premise -- that owners do web searches when something big is afoot.  But after 750+ posts, the issue here is:
> 
> *All* of the new voices support Marriott down the line.
> The new voices sound just as shill-ish as those new voices who come here to tout timeshare exit companies.
> Many of the new voices don't even own at SH.
> Many of the new voices' posts are based on innuendo, not facts ("we hear that a board member . . . ." is _*not *_a fact, especially when neither the source nor the board member is disclosed).  They make up the innuendo as they go along.


Much has been alleged about the motives of so called new voices on Tug.
Our position was laid out in one of our first posts. 
1.We don’t own at SH but have traded in for almost 20 years. We would like to be able to do so in the future.
2. We have no association or particular allegiance to Hyatt, ILG, or Marriott.
3. Over the past 20 years we have gotten to know a lot of SH owners and have spoken with many of them the past 2 months. A number of them have contacts with current SH board members and a substantial amount of the information we have posted came from them. If a person asked us not to be too detailed we agreed as the information would have put a target on their back or they would be easily identified.
4. What we have learned has overwhelming supported our position that this effort should be voted down. Both for the personal reasons mentioned above and the board revelations uncovered.


----------



## Emerson

Cropman said:


> Ok, I’m confused. This is from an email I received today from Sunset Harbor Resort that included previous board minutes:
> 
> Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Resort Agreement should be terminated or the managing entity of the Club should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative.
> 
> If all Directors voted for it, why did a lot of us get a letter from a board member saying that person was voting no?  As a BOD shouldn’t that person have voted no on the proposal at the meeting?  Geez, and I thought it was just politicians who played both sides of the fence.


All 4 Board members voted for the exit vote. Don Heisler was not present. Why a Marlyn Gordon stated later that she didn’t vote yes and sent out an email indicating that she voted no only she can answer. This is one of the revelations that came out of last weeks board meeting.


----------



## ivywag

Emerson said:


> All 4 Board members voted for the exit vote. Don Heisler was not present. Why a Marlyn Gordon stated later that she didn’t vote yes and sent out an email indicating that she voted no only she can answer. This is one of the revelations that came out of last weeks board meeting.


If you don’t own at Sunset Harbor, how do you know what was in today’s e-mail?  FYI- We, too, had been trading into Sunset for nearly 20 years.  When we heard that they might be leaving Hyatt, we purchased a unit and week that we will use every year.  Maybe that’s what you should do and then you might feel differently about the vote.


----------



## Emerson

ivywag said:


> If you don’t own at Sunset Harbor, how do you know what was in today’s e-mail?  FYI- We, too, had been trading into Sunset for nearly 20 years.  When we heard that they might be leaving Hyatt, we purchased a unit and week that we will use every year.  Maybe that’s what you should do and then you might feel differently about the vote.


Its in Cropman’s post 4:15 pm


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> Well, what are those owners with board contacts saying happened at the meeting?  Sounds “explosive.”  Please share what you’re hearing.


He says "he knows somebody who knows somebody".  That's a rock solid source.


----------



## ocdb8r

vacationtime1 said:


> I agree with the underlying premise -- that owners do web searches when something big is afoot.  But after 750+ posts, the issue here is:
> 
> *All* of the new voices support Marriott down the line.
> The new voices sound just as shill-ish as those new voices who come here to tout timeshare exit companies.
> Many of the new voices don't even own at SH.
> Many of the new voices' posts are based on innuendo, not facts ("we hear that a board member . . . ." is _*not *_a fact, especially when neither the source nor the board member is disclosed).  They make up the innuendo as they go along.


...and this to me seems like a reasonable set of points to make and a way to point out your concerns that is in the spirit of TUG.  However, some of the posts in this thread and very personal attacks on people that are new to this Board don't sit well with me.  I totally understand the concern that some have come here just to push a specific agenda, but I think there is a civil way to address those concerns and continue to debate in this thread.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> All 4 Board members voted for the exit vote. Don Heisler was not present. Why a Marlyn Gordon stated later that she didn’t vote yes and sent out an email indicating that she voted no only she can answer. This is one of the revelations that came out of last weeks board meeting.



"only she can answer"....And that is why a NON-owner should not be reporting with second or third hand information about YES supporting vote by the same Board member since the NON-owner does not know.  Same for the "many' OWNERS they are supposedly  representing.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> "only she can answer"....And that is why a NON-owner should not be reporting with second or third hand information about YES supporting vote by the same Board member since the NON-owner does not know.  Same for the "many' OWNERS they are supposedly  representing.


It’s in the meeting minutes,but maybe that’s second or third hand information to you!


----------



## dioxide45

Emerson said:


> It’s in the meeting minutes,but maybe that’s second or third hand information to you!


Has anyone published these minutes anywhere?


----------



## Emerson

dioxide45 said:


> Has anyone published these minutes anywhere?


Cropman stated yesterday ( see thread) that he got a copy of the minutes from Sunset Harbor.


----------



## AJCts411

dioxide45 said:


> Has anyone published these minutes anywhere?


 The BOD sent out a email to the owners with the minutes.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> It’s in the meeting minutes,but maybe that’s second or third hand information to you!



In the meeting minutes recorded was a unanimous yes vote.  Opposite of what you a NON-owner have numerous times repeated.


----------



## JanT

I haven't seen the "infamous" email by the board member whom some are reporting stated the BOD member voted "No" against the proposal to split from Hyatt/MVC/MWC, So, I have no idea what was said in that particular email.  If anyone wants to share it here, that would be beneficial because it sounds like the BOD member was trying to make it sound like they voted "No" on the proposed split.

However, it is clear from the email/meeting minutes I received from the BOD late last night, that the vote to recommend to owners to split from Hyatt/MVC/MWC was a *unanimous* vote and the subject BOD member was at that meeting.  Here is the exact verbiage from the meeting minutes:

*"TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT AND RESORT AGREEMENT
The Board discussed the Resort’s relationship with the Management Company and with Hyatt Residence Club and solicited legal counsel’s thoughts and impressions.

Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Management Contract should be terminated and/or that the managing entity should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative.

Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Resort Agreement should be terminated or the managing entity of the Club should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative."*

There it is in black and white - ALL BODs voted to terminate the relationship with Hyatt/MVC/MWC. Why one particular BOD member then did an about face, became in very vocal opposition to the exact BOD they sit on, and apparently began sharing proprietary information is very concerning. I'm going to state it right here for everyone to see - *that board member needs to resign right now.* They cannot vote yes for something as a member of the BOD and then start working in the background and right out in front to oppose the very thing they voted yes on. If that board member refuses to resign, I'm going to go on a personal crusade to have them removed from the BOD and/or make a huge push for them to not be reelected. I'm retired - I have plenty of time to tackle that. It's bullshit what they did and I do not want someone like that on the BOD.


As an aside, I was *very* encouraged to read the following passage in the opening letter of the email the BOD sent out yesterday. It's precisely what I said should have been happening from the beginning of this fiasco and I'm pleased to see that at least some BOD members and Hyatt/MVC/MWC are working to address owner concerns. I don't believe for one minute that Hyatt/MVC/MWC wants SH to leave their system and maybe this was a huge wake up call for them to start addressing the issues at hand.  It had better be - just because owners might not vote in that direction *this* time, doesn't mean they won't vote to leave next time. Anyway, here is what was in the letter:

*"Please note that Board leadership had previously initiated contact with Marriott Vacations Worldwide (MVW) corporate management regarding the core concerns expressed by our owners relative to Resort and Club policies. In recent days there has been dialog between Board leadership and MVW and additional dialog between the parties is scheduled for July 11, 2022. As further information on key concerns is developed, the Board will share this information with our owners as it becomes defined and available. "*

Let's just get it together and get the resort back to where it should be and let's work at cutting costs and get MFs under control.  It just can't be that damned hard.


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> - *that board member needs to resign right now.* They cannot vote yes for something as a member of the BOD and then start working in the background and right out in front to oppose the very thing they voted yes on. If they refuse to resign,...


"if they refuse.."???  Do you really mean "the BOD member"??  or "she"??


----------



## JanT

Sorry, I'll correct the wording but I meant the one specific BOD member should resign.



Kal said:


> "if they refuse.."???  Do you really mean "the BOD member"??  or "she"??


----------



## RM@SH

JanT said:


> I haven't seen the "infamous" email by the board member whom some are reporting stated the BOD member voted "No" against the proposal to split from Hyatt/MVC/MWC, So, I have no idea what was said in that particular email.  If anyone wants to share it here, that would be beneficial because it sounds like the BOD member was trying to make it sound like they voted "No" on the proposed split.
> 
> However, it is clear from the email/meeting minutes I received from the BOD late last night, that the vote to recommend to owners to split from Hyatt/MVC/MWC was a *unanimous* vote and the subject BOD member was at that meeting.  Here is the exact verbiage from the meeting minutes:
> 
> *"TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT AND RESORT AGREEMENT
> The Board discussed the Resort’s relationship with the Management Company and with Hyatt Residence Club and solicited legal counsel’s thoughts and impressions.
> 
> Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Management Contract should be terminated and/or that the managing entity should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative.
> 
> Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Resort Agreement should be terminated or the managing entity of the Club should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative."*
> 
> There it is in black and white - ALL BODs voted to terminate the relationship with Hyatt/MVC/MWC. Why one particular BOD member then did an about face, became in very vocal opposition to the exact BOD they sit on, and apparently began sharing proprietary information is very concerning. I'm going to state it right here for everyone to see - *that board member needs to resign right now.* They cannot vote yes for something as a member of the BOD and then start working in the background and right out in front to oppose the very thing they voted yes on. If that board member refuses to resign, I'm going to go on a personal crusade to have them removed from the BOD and/or make a huge push for them to not be reelected. I'm retired - I have plenty of time to tackle that. It's bullshit what they did and I do not want someone like that on the BOD.
> 
> 
> As an aside, I was *very* encouraged to read the following passage in the opening letter of the email the BOD sent out yesterday. It's precisely what I said should have been happening from the beginning of this fiasco and I'm pleased to see that at least some BOD members and Hyatt/MVC/MWC are working to address owner concerns. I don't believe for one minute that Hyatt/MVC/MWC wants SH to leave their system and maybe this was a huge wake up call for them to start addressing the issues at hand.  It had better be - just because owners might not vote in that direction *this* time, doesn't mean they won't vote to leave next time. Anyway, here is what was in the letter:
> 
> *"Please note that Board leadership had previously initiated contact with Marriott Vacations Worldwide (MVW) corporate management regarding the core concerns expressed by our owners relative to Resort and Club policies. In recent days there has been dialog between Board leadership and MVW and additional dialog between the parties is scheduled for July 11, 2022. As further information on key concerns is developed, the Board will share this information with our owners as it becomes defined and available. "*
> 
> Let's just get it together and get the resort back to where it should be and let's work at cutting costs and get MFs under control.  It just can't be that damned hard.



Where did that board member "get vocal" and what "proprietary" information was shared?  I do see that the board member did have concerns and questions on hiring SOS which from what I understand from other threads was the company that got Aspen into the legal battle cost the owners dearly.


----------



## SueDonJ

JanT said:


> I haven't seen the "infamous" email by the board member whom some are reporting stated the BOD member voted "No" against the proposal to split from Hyatt/MVC/MWC, So, I have no idea what was said in that particular email.  If anyone wants to share it here, that would be beneficial because it sounds like the BOD member was trying to make it sound like they voted "No" on the proposed split.
> 
> However, it is clear from the email/meeting minutes I received from the BOD late last night, that the vote to recommend to owners to split from Hyatt/MVC/MWC was a *unanimous* vote and the subject BOD member was at that meeting.  Here is the exact verbiage from the meeting minutes:
> 
> *"TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT AND RESORT AGREEMENT
> The Board discussed the Resort’s relationship with the Management Company and with Hyatt Residence Club and solicited legal counsel’s thoughts and impressions.
> 
> Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Management Contract should be terminated and/or that the managing entity should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative.
> 
> Joseph Morin moved that the Board should recommend to Unit Owners that the Resort Agreement should be terminated or the managing entity of the Club should be discharged after appropriate notice and allowing for a transitional period to be determined, and that a special meeting of the Association should be called so that Members/Unit Owners can vote on the question. Brett Hendricks seconded the motion, which carried with all Directors present voting in the affirmative."*
> 
> There it is in black and white - ALL BODs voted to terminate the relationship with Hyatt/MVC/MWC. Why one particular BOD member then did an about face, became in very vocal opposition to the exact BOD they sit on, and apparently began sharing proprietary information is very concerning. I'm going to state it right here for everyone to see - *that board member needs to resign right now.* They cannot vote yes for something as a member of the BOD and then start working in the background and right out in front to oppose the very thing they voted yes on. If that board member refuses to resign, I'm going to go on a personal crusade to have them removed from the BOD and/or make a huge push for them to not be reelected. I'm retired - I have plenty of time to tackle that. It's bullshit what they did and I do not want someone like that on the BOD.
> 
> 
> As an aside, I was *very* encouraged to read the following passage in the opening letter of the email the BOD sent out yesterday. It's precisely what I said should have been happening from the beginning of this fiasco and I'm pleased to see that at least some BOD members and Hyatt/MVC/MWC are working to address owner concerns. I don't believe for one minute that Hyatt/MVC/MWC wants SH to leave their system and maybe this was a huge wake up call for them to start addressing the issues at hand.  It had better be - just because owners might not vote in that direction *this* time, doesn't mean they won't vote to leave next time. Anyway, here is what was in the letter:
> 
> *"Please note that Board leadership had previously initiated contact with Marriott Vacations Worldwide (MVW) corporate management regarding the core concerns expressed by our owners relative to Resort and Club policies. In recent days there has been dialog between Board leadership and MVW and additional dialog between the parties is scheduled for July 11, 2022. As further information on key concerns is developed, the Board will share this information with our owners as it becomes defined and available. "*
> 
> Let's just get it together and get the resort back to where it should be and let's work at cutting costs and get MFs under control.  It just can't be that damned hard.


This is still very confusing.

Today is July 12. The email you're referencing was received by you yesterday, Jul 11, but states that talks with Marriott were supposed to happen on Jul 11? Post #1 in this thread references an email dated Jun 2 which gave notice of  the scheduled Jul 14 Special Meeting for the ownership vote, and it had an attachment with details that's also been posted in this thread. There are rumors, though, that the BOD held another "contentious" meeting last week or the week before?

Is this email that you got last night the same one that others received on Jun 2, and you've just gotten it now? Or is this another email that references a different BOD meeting? Did the rumored more recent meeting take place, and are those minutes available? Also, whenever that BOD vote happened, I don't see where it says that all members of the BOD were present and voted "yes" to terminate the current management contract. I get that all members who did attend voted "yes" - but the notice says, "all Directors present voted in the affirmative," which isn't the same thing as, "all Directors were present."

If I were an owner, again I'm not, but if I were, I'd want to know how the talks between Marriott and the "Board leadership" went yesterday before I voted on the 14th, and if that conversation didn't happen I'd want to know why not. I also would want to be more clear on how many BOD meetings related to the management issue have taken place, when they took place, exactly which members were present for each meeting, and where are the minutes for each meeting if there's been more than one?

Isn't it just as important to know why any BOD member thinks s/he has legitimate reason to suggest a "no" vote, as it is to know why any BOD members suggest a "yes" vote?


----------



## AJCts411

RM@SH said:


> Where did that board member "get vocal" and what "proprietary" information was shared?  I do see that the board member did have concerns and questions on hiring SOS which from what I understand from other threads was the company that got Aspen into the legal battle cost the owners dearly.



The Aspen issue with the lawyers is if or if not they are owed fees per the agreement.  
The litigation by the owners against Hyatt is an entirely different subject as after a vote each owner paid an assesmet to fund the litigation.


----------



## AJCts411

SueDonJ said:


> Is this email that you got last night the same one that others received on Jun 2, and you've just gotten it now? Or is this another email that references a different BOD meeting? Did the rumored more recent meeting take place, and are those minutes available? Also, whenever that BOD vote happened, I don't see where it says that all members of the BOD were present and voted "yes" to terminate the current management contract. I get that all members who did attend voted "yes" - but the notice says, "all Directors present voted in the affirmative," which isn't the same thing as, "all Directors were present."



In the minutes of the meeting is a list of attendees. One member was not present (Don H.).

The talks with Marriott...."Please note that Board leadership had previously initiated contact with Marriott Vacations Worldwide (MVW) corporate management regarding the core concerns expressed by our owners relative to Resort and Club policies....As an owner, I know how that went.  Marriott* IS increasing *our management fees to 15%. No negotiation. period. Marriott IS taking 15% of our reserve fund, which as been excluded from management fees. . Period. All those millions in reserve will shrink 15% every year OR we owners will pay more. Marriot is not negotiating.

"In recent days there has been dialog between Board leadership and MVW and additional dialog between the parties is scheduled for July 11, 2022. As further information on key concerns is developed, the Board will share this information with our owners as it becomes defined and available."... IMO, more smoke and mirror talk...vague promises of changes, new better improved...just like the Marriot town hall fiasco.


----------



## JanT

It's very obvious from several of the posts here that they have had contact with that board member and the board member was making it loud and clear they didn't support the move from MVC.  That board member sent out an email to owner contacts that she had access to, telling them that they (the board member) did not vote for the move from MVC when they absolutely DID vote in the affirmative.  It's in the minutes - black and white.

Regarding proprietary information, based on a couple of posts here, it is clear that the board member was sharing the status of the vote count.  And, prior to any of this happening, the board member in question apparently sent out a list of ALL Hyatt SH owners that includes addresses, phone numbers, emails, weeks owned, etc.  (And it was a different list than the one they keep with owners who want to rent or exchange weeks). This was a master list!  WTH?  That is private information (protected by the privacy act) and should anyone want to pursue it, the BOD could be sued over that boneheaded move.  I'm not sure what that board member was thinking when they did that but it was irresponsible and reckless and opens the BOD up to a huge lawsuit if anyone gets a mind to do that.  In today's environment, it wouldn't surprise me.



RM@SH said:


> Where did that board member "get vocal" and what "proprietary" information was shared?  I do see that the board member did have concerns and questions on hiring SOS which from what I understand from other threads was the company that got Aspen into the legal battle cost the owners dearly.


----------



## SUN-N-Fun

Where do these emails come from? We don’t get them, but we are new.


----------



## JanT

The email I received late last night was dated 11 July 2022 and was sent out by the SH BOD.  There were a couple of purposes of the email.  It is different than the one sent on Jun 2 2022.

The email last night gave out the information for the 14 July 2022 special meeting with the call in information so people can listen in. That meeting is solely for the company that conducted the vote to deliver the results. Also, they announced the next board meeting is 23 August 2022.

It also addresses the meeting of the BOD which was held on July 6 2022, gave a brief rundown of topics at the meeting, and attached the approved minutes of meetings from April and May. It mentioned the on-going vote and when the vote would end. It then moved into the paragraph I quoted about the BOD working with MVC to address owner concerns. It concluded with the typical, "We appreciate your feedback, blah, blah, blah" stuff.

There was one BOD missing from the meeting where the vote was taken to terminate the contract with MVC - that was Don Heisler. Every other BOD was there. The BOD member who has done the old switch-a-roo and sent out the email that said they didn't support it was there AND voted to recommend to owners to terminate the contract with Hyatt/MVC.

I agree - I want way more information than what I have on hand before I just hand off SH to an independent management company.  That's why I didn't support it.  Maybe I could have, IF I had more information.  My current gripe is that a BOD member who voted "Yes" in a BOD meeting to recommend a departure from Hyatt/MVC, then turns around and sends out an email to many owners (I don't know how many people actually got the email but I believe it was in at least the hundreds) advising them they (the BOD member) did NOT vote "Yes" when they clearly did.  They were outright lying when they said they didn't vote for it.  That BOD member started a vocal opposition to the very BOD they sit on and against a vote they voted "Yes" on.  Once a BOD takes a vote, all BOD members have to stand to defend it if there was a majority vote (which there wasy).  I don't like the lying.  I don't like the deception.  I don't like the use of proprietary information.  All in an effort to sway a vote against something they voted in the affirmative for.  I honestly don't know what the Hell their problem is but I will be contacting the BOD, requesting that members resignation, and if they refuse, I'll go from there.



SueDonJ said:


> This is still very confusing.
> 
> Today is July 12. The email you're referencing was received by you yesterday, Jul 11, but states that talks with Marriott were supposed to happen on Jul 11? Post #1 in this thread references an email dated Jun 2 which gave notice of  the scheduled Jul 14 Special Meeting for the ownership vote, and it had an attachment with details that's also been posted in this thread. There are rumors, though, that the BOD held another "contentious" meeting last week or the week before?
> 
> Is this email that you got last night the same one that others received on Jun 2, and you've just gotten it now? Or is this another email that references a different BOD meeting? Did the rumored more recent meeting take place, and are those minutes available? Also, whenever that BOD vote happened, I don't see where it says that all members of the BOD were present and voted "yes" to terminate the current management contract. I get that all members who did attend voted "yes" - but the notice says, "all Directors present voted in the affirmative," which isn't the same thing as, "all Directors were present."
> 
> If I were an owner, again I'm not, but if I were, I'd want to know how the talks between Marriott and the "Board leadership" went yesterday before I voted on the 14th, and if that conversation didn't happen I'd want to know why not. I also would want to be more clear on how many BOD meetings related to the management issue have taken place, when they took place, exactly which members were present for each meeting, and where are the minutes for each meeting if there's been more than one?
> 
> Isn't it just as important to know why any BOD member thinks s/he has legitimate reason to suggest a "no" vote, as it is to know why any BOD members suggest a "yes" vote?


----------



## JanT

Your email should be on file with Hyatt Sunset Harbor.  Not sure how long ago you bought but it's possible you just aren't in the system yet.



SUN-N-Fun said:


> Where do these emails come from? We don’t get them, but we are new.


----------



## Kal

JanT said:


> ...Regarding proprietary information, based on a couple of posts here, it is clear that the board member was sharing the status of the vote count.  And, prior to any of this happening, the board member in question apparently sent out a list of ALL Hyatt SH owners that includes addresses, phone numbers, emails, weeks owned, etc.  (And it was a different list than the one they keep with owners who want to rent or exchange weeks). This was a master list!  WTH?  That is private information (protected by the privacy act) and should anyone want to pursue it, the BOD could be sued over that boneheaded move.  I'm not sure what that board member was thinking when they did that but it was irresponsible and reckless and opens the BOD up to a huge lawsuit if anyone gets a mind to do that.  In today's environment, it wouldn't surprise me.


I was an email recipient and have that master list on file.  Now, it brings home the privacy of that information.  Back when the BOD member provided that list I was shocked and thought OMG, what a bone headed action.  She was new to the BOD, so I figured maybe there was a new policy.  I immediately checked with another BOD member and that person's opinion was it was not a good move and could not predict any outcome.

Given all the other behavior issues, that BOD member needs to focus on vacation time.


----------



## pedro47

What happen on July 12,2022?


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> It's very obvious from several of the posts here that they have had contact with that board member and the board member was making it loud and clear they didn't support the move from MVC.  That board member sent out an email to owner contacts that she had access to, telling them that they (the board member) did not vote for the move from MVC when they absolutely DID vote in the affirmative.  It's in the minutes - black and white.
> 
> Regarding proprietary information, based on a couple of posts here, it is clear that the board member was sharing the status of the vote count.  And, prior to any of this happening, the board member in question apparently sent out a list of ALL Hyatt SH owners that includes addresses, phone numbers, emails, weeks owned, etc.  (And it was a different list than the one they keep with owners who want to rent or exchange weeks). This was a master list!  WTH?  That is private information (protected by the privacy act) and should anyone want to pursue it, the BOD could be sued over that boneheaded move.  I'm not sure what that board member was thinking when they did that but it was irresponsible and reckless and opens the BOD up to a huge lawsuit if anyone gets a mind to do that.  In today's environment, it wouldn't surprise me.


I think that there may be two votes here:
1. When the BOD member voted as a board member
2. When she/he/they (whatever it is these days!) voted personally.

However, I agree that she/he/they should not have sent out the personal email—especially since it apparently contradicted the position as a BOD member.


----------



## ivywag

SUN-N-Fun said:


> Where do these emails come from? We don’t get them, but we are new.


Did you receive a ballot?  We are new, too, and I had to call to receive the ballot.


----------



## JanT

There very well may be BUT the email specifically said the board member voted "No" as a BOD which they did not.  They voted "Yes."



ivywag said:


> I think that there may be two votes here:
> 1. When the BOD member voted as a board member
> 2. When she/he/they (whatever it is these days!) voted personally.
> 
> However, I agree that she/he/they should not have sent out the personal email—especially since it apparently contradicted the position as a BOD member.


----------



## JanT

Yes, I received my ballot but we had been owners for quite a few years so they had our info in their file.  Glad you were able to get yours.



ivywag said:


> Did you receive a ballot?  We are new, too and I had to call to receive the ballot.


----------



## SUN-N-Fun

ivywag said:


> Did you receive a ballot?  We are new, too, and I had to call to receive the ballot.


No we haven’t received any emails. Outside of TUGBBS and HYATT informing us about this we wouldn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on.


----------



## ivywag

SUN-N-Fun said:


> No we haven’t received any emails. Outside of TUGBBS and HYATT informing us about this we wouldn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on.


If you own at Sunset Harbor and your unit is in your account, call Don Heisler at 1-800-425-8162.  He helped us.  The vote ends today at 5pm ET so you need to tell him to send you the electronic link ASAP if you want to vote.  Good Luck!


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> I was an email recipient and have that master list on file.  Now, it brings home the privacy of that information.  Back when the BOD member provided that list I was shocked and thought OMG, what a bone headed action.  She was new to the BOD, so I figured maybe there was a new policy.  I immediately checked with another BOD member and that person's opinion was it was not a good move and could not predict any outcome.
> 
> Given all the other behavior issues, that BOD member needs to focus on vacation time.


A Sunset Harbor owner told me today that this BOD tried to help them change their vote from a yes to a no vote. What the heck is going on?


----------



## JanT

Well, I would imagine if someone wanted to change their vote for whatever reason, up until the vote is closed they would have a right to rescind and change their original vote.  So, I'm not alarmed about that.  Interesting though that they wanted to change their vote but maybe they voted quickly without enough info and after digging around a bit, decided they didn't like the idea of splitting from MWC afterall.  Now, if the BOD member was twisting their arm and they felt pressured to change their vote, that's a whole other issue.



Emerson said:


> A Sunset Harbor owner told me today that this BOD tried to help them change their vote from a yes to a no vote. What the heck is going on?


----------



## AJCts411

As the source of this information, what is known to you? A BOD member votes yes as recorded in the minutes, now publicly, according to your sources, has been campaigning specific owners to vote no.  What's going on? I'll wonder when our BOD lawyer will be asking that question of that BOD member.  




Emerson said:


> A Sunset Harbor owner told me today that this BOD tried to help them change their vote from a yes to a no vote. What the heck is going on?


----------



## Kal

This has become an issue with specific BOD members.  To be credible, let's have the names when referring to BOD members.  If one is operating outside the Board on BOD matters, we need facts, no just "somebody said".


----------



## Emerson

Kal said:


> This has become an issue with specific BOD members.  To be credible, let's have the names when referring to BOD members.  If one is operating outside the Board on BOD matters, we need facts, no just "somebody said".


Marlyn Gordon


----------



## JanT

The lawyer should be asking some questions.  Owners should be asking some questions. I don't like what's been going on behind the scenes and am preparing a letter to the BOD requesting that the BOD member in question either resign immediately or be removed.  



AJCts411 said:


> As the source of this information, what is known to you? A BOD member votes yes as recorded in the minutes, now publicly, according to your sources, has been campaigning specific owners to vote no.  What's going on? I'll wonder when our BOD lawyer will be asking that question of that BOD member.


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> A Sunset Harbor owner told me today that this BOD tried to help them change their vote from a yes to a no vote. What the heck is going on?
> 
> IMO people should be able to change their vote as more information and discussion has been forthcoming over the recent weeks since the BOD sent out their first (very biased and one-sided) request for yes votes.
> I believe anyone should be able to change their vote until voting closes (today?).


----------



## JanT

I believe that is possible.  I would entail getting in touch with the company handling the voting which at this late date might be difficult or impossible.  But, anyone should have the right to change their vote if they want to (and haven't been coerced or strongarmed into it).



INCHWORM said:


> IMO people should be able to change their vote as more information and discussion has been forthcoming over the recent weeks since the BOD sent out their first (very biased and one-sided) request for yes votes.
> I believe anyone should be able to change their vote until voting closes (today?).


----------



## chrisbellows

Emerson said:


> Marlyn Gordon


Marilyn's character and conduct are superior.   She emails only those who personally have asked her to.   We will know the tally tomorrow,  and hope for the best.


----------



## Kal

chrisbellows said:


> Marilyn's character and conduct are superior.   She emails only those who personally have asked her to.   We will know the tally tomorrow,  and hope for the best.


I did not ask her to provide me a list of 2000 HSH owners private information.


----------



## chrisbellows

Kal said:


> I did not ask her to provide me a list of 2000 HSH owners private information.


Her emails to don’t include private information — just a listing of rentals and sales available with no names.   Even if you hit reply all you don’t get anyone’s email or other info.Lots more in life to be worried about than a kind and caring person.  If the vote doesn’t go your way you are free to sell and find another place in paradise.


----------



## chrisbellows

chrisbellows said:


> Her emails to don’t include private information — just a listing of rentals and sales available with no names.   Even if you hit reply all you don’t get anyone’s email or other info.Lots more in life to be worried about than a kind and caring person.  If the vote doesn’t go your way you are free to sell and find another place in paradise.


And you are also free to UNSUBSCRIBE to her emails which you clearly asked to receive — geez.


----------



## Kal

chrisbellows said:


> Her emails to don’t include private information — just a listing of rentals and sales available with no names. ..


She provided detailed private information on a list of 2000 Sunset Harbor owners. From that list I see _[deleted] _has some meaning.


----------



## chrisbellows

Kal said:


> She provided detailed private information on a list of 2000 Sunset Harbor owners. From that list I see 102nd Street has some meaning.


I didn’t receive that communication— she’s a sweet well-intentioned person .  Maybe it was by mistake.  Results forthcoming!


----------



## Kal

chrisbellows said:


> I didn’t receive that communication— she’s a sweet well-intentioned person .  Maybe it was by mistake.  Results forthcoming!


She may be sweet, but when a person is on the BOD, there is no room for bone headedness when she's representing the needs of 2000 owners.  When dealing the MVC, they don't provide "sweet innocent" representatives when they are dealing with resort BODs.  We need tough minded people to counter their financial demands on the owners.  For them, it's all about MONEY.  If I were purchasing clothing, I would not want to deal with a tough minded sales person, but rather a "sweet well-intentioned" person.


----------



## chrisbellows

Kal said:


> She may be sweet, but when a person is on the BOD, there is no room for bone headedness when she's representing the needs of 2000 owners.  When dealing the MVC, they don't provide "sweet innocent" representatives when they are dealing with resort BODs.  We need tough minded people to counter their financial demands on the owners.  For them, it's all about MONEY.  If I were purchasing clothing, I would not want to deal with a tough minded sales person, but rather a "sweet well-intentioned" person.


She’s tough too.   I’m sorry you are so upset about this I hope things get better for you.   Kind regards .. Chris


----------



## Emerson

chrisbellows said:


> She’s tough too.   I’m sorry you are so upset about this I hope things get better for you.   Kind regards .. Chris


Sweet, Tough, who gives a damn! She tried to play both sides of this whole issue and got caught. There must be a place for her in DC.


----------



## Kal

Emerson said:


> Sweet, Tough, who gives a damn! She tried to play both sides of this whole issue and got caught. There must be a place for her in DC.


Marriott is going to turn us upside down and shake every dollar out of our pockets.  Right now we have at least 3 very hard nose BOD members who will put up a good fight.  That should be enough to do the best.  We can deal with a marginal member who "plays both sides", as long as she is not disruptive in moving forward.  That's the problem.  Most owners pay little if any attention to the big picture.  When there is a voice which muddies the water, the fail safe position is vote NO.

It's bad enough that the roll-out could have been much better, but Marriott will be singing a happy tune, all the way to the bank.


----------



## ivywag

Sounds like you’re all assuming that the no vote prevailed


----------



## Emerson

ivywag said:


> Sounds like you’re all assuming that the no vote prevailed


The vote ended yesterday, what’s the verdict?


----------



## dioxide45

Emerson said:


> The vote ended yesterday, what’s the verdict?


Won't that be determined at the meeting today? What time is the meeting?


----------



## Emerson

dioxide45 said:


> Won't that be determined at the meeting today? What time is the meeting?


1pm


----------



## JanT

Listening in right now.  Should be interesting.


----------



## JanT

And both issues failed.  Total of 829 owners voted - 52.8%

The vote to terminate the management contract failed as it did not meet the vote threshold.

The vote to terminate club membership failed as it did not meet the vote threshold.

It was stated that the BOD had reached out to MWC in the past few weeks and they have been working together over the past few weeks to address some issues that have been festering for years.  They said they are making good progress on making some changes to governance documents and other changes to 7 salient areas of concern.  They wrapped it up by thanking SH members for continuing to trust Hyatt/MWC with SH.  

Well, yeah, not sure that's really the case but we left it in their hands for now.  Doesn't mean there won't be a more informed push to get rid of them if they don't step up the damned game and take care of these issues.


----------



## suzannesimon

I listen in on the meeting. I had mixed feelings. I received the first email and voted. I might have voted differently if there had been more discussion on the pros and cons. I felt this was a vote that was jammed through too quickly.


----------



## dioxide45

Did they even share the split of Yes/No on the votes cast? Or perhaps that wasn't shared because the quorum wasn't met?


----------



## sjsharkie

JanT said:


> And both issues failed. Total of 829 owners voted - 52.8%
> 
> The vote to terminate the management contract failed as it did not meet the vote threshold.
> 
> The vote to terminate club membership failed as it did not meet the vote threshold.
> .


Hi Jan

Hope all is well with you and thanks for the info.

Did they say 829 votes or 829 owners? Curious because 1 owner may have multiple weeks and EOY owners only get 50% voting power compared to EY owners.

Also did they say what the threshold requirement was? Curious how close it got - I wonder if Hyatt voted any of their ownership or chose to sit out hoping not to reach the threshold.

Hope to see you in Hawaii again some time.

Ryan

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## ivywag

sjsharkie said:


> Hi Jan
> 
> Hope all is well with you and thanks for the info.
> 
> Did they say 829 votes or 829 owners? Curious because 1 owner may have multiple weeks and EOY owners only get 50% voting power compared to EY owners.
> 
> Also did they say what the threshold requirement was? Curious how close it got - I wonder if Hyatt voted any of their ownership or chose to sit out hoping not to reach the threshold.
> 
> Hope to see you in Hawaii again some time.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


829 owners and more votes because some owners had more than one unit.  The threshold was 2/3 of those voting. If Marriott voted all of their units it would have made it nearly impossible to obtain the needed votes unless more owners voted.


----------



## SueDonJ

For those of you who wanted the votes to pass, I'm sorry it didn't happen for you and I hope you can continue to love and use your ownerships in a way that makes you happy.

For those of you who wanted the votes to fail, I hope you all also continue to love and use your ownerships but don't feel too comfortable yet.

For all of you, it sounds as though it's time to ask some hard and specific questions of your BOD so that next time, if there is a next time, as many owners as possible are involved in the process. It doesn't sound like that happened this time around and a couple things stand out as questionable (at best):

- Any ownership votes, whether they're the usual Annual Meeting votes or votes related to Special Meetings such as this one, require a quorum and every individual ownership is entitled to a ballot. Usually the responsibility for making sure that ballots are issued for every ownership falls on the Management Company, regardless of whether it's an issue brought forth by them or an issue against them that's brought by the BOD or an owner. There are hoops to jump through and costs involved with mailings but you are all better served if you scour the governing docs and learn what you need to know about quorums and voting majorities, etc and how to get ballots/info in the hands of as many owners as possible.

- Ownership contact information may be protected by both state and federal laws, as well as any stipulations in the governing docs. Having watched a similar BOD member-led revolt at a Marriott resort in which a BOD member misused the ownership contact info he'd collected over his time served, which resulted in every Marriott resort's Annual Meeting the next year requiring a vote as to whether owners individually wanted their contact information to remain protected by Marriott (which carried a resounding "yes" vote across all resorts,) I think it's fair to say that you don't want your BOD members to be misusing and abusing any information to which their position gives them access - not if it can be used to help you and definitely not if it can be used to hurt you. Again, scour the docs to learn what's necessary to force the Management Company to compile and send out to every owner whatever vote/informational packets you want sent out, and hold them to their requirements. IMO, giving this power to the BOD members is letting the Management Company off the hook (and, IMO, is too risky when you consider that in the hands of a disgruntled BOD member, an ownership contact information list is a pretty valuable commodity.)

Lastly, welcome to all the Sunset Harbor owners who were led to this thread and TUG through circumstance. I hope you'll stick around and continue contributing - if all you've seen is this thread, you might think about starting with this "About TUG" page.


----------



## Emerson

As a potential buyer of a. Week at Sunset Harbor I would like to know how much this effort cost the current ownership. I am sure that the current owners would also like to know. Just the legal fees alone I am sure are substantial.
Also, now this heavily damaged BOD will have to start the 2023 budget process as it is my understanding that a budget meeting is scheduled in just about a month. Something tells me that the timing of this exit vote was the start of a very big surprise for the owners!


----------



## GTLINZ

So now the question is - based on this current failure to launch, how long will SH remain contractually tied to MVW?  This indirectly affects other HRC (and even HPP) owners and will tell us how long before this vote could come up again.

I also may have missed something, but it sounds like the failed vote threshold was disclosed - but not the voting percentages?


----------



## GTLINZ

Emerson said:


> As a potential buyer of a.  Week at Sunset Harbor ...



I doubt that you will have that chance .... it is called ROFR.


----------



## chrisbellows

Emerson said:


> Sweet, Tough, who gives a damn! She tried to play both sides of this whole issue and got caught. There must be a place for her in DC.





Emerson said:


> As a potential buyer of a. Week at Sunset Harbor I would like to know how much this effort cost the current ownership. I am sure that the current owners would also like to know. Just the legal fees alone I am sure are substantial.
> Also, now this heavily damaged BOD will have to start the 2023 budget process as it is my understanding that a budget meeting is scheduled in just about a month. Something tells me that the timing of this exit vote was the start of a very big surprise for the owners!


If you want to buy Don Heisler on the SH BOD is the guy to contact ..... he's great to work with and with the market crashing you might find some good deals (you can find his info on the web).  I see you own at Windward Pointe, I love that resort as well.


----------



## chrisbellows

GTLINZ said:


> So now the question is - based on this current failure to launch, how long will SH remain contractually tied to MVW?  This indirectly affects other HRC (and even HPP) owners and will tell us how long before this vote could come up again.
> 
> I also may have missed something, but it sounds like the failed vote threshold was disclosed - but not the voting percentages?


I did not hear any percentages, I was wondering as well.


----------



## chrisbellows

For those on both sides of the vote, happy hour is only a few hours away and Key West is still Key West.    Best to all.


----------



## JanT

Kal,

I really don't think all hope is lost to leave MWC if that's what it comes down to. People just had to have more information that proved it necessary. They didn't have it this time around. I don't think MWC can move fast enough to gain full control - not that many people will be selling their weeks so MWC won't be able to ROFR. In addition, they have to know that even if the next contract is for 3 years, there is ALWAYS a way to break a contract. If they don't shape up and make some changes, owners can always take action. Yes, that takes money but I'm pretty sure we've got owners who are attorneys who would be more than happy to do pro bono. Bottom line is MWC doesn't want to lose SH and I think there will be some good faith negotiations between them and the BOD.

Again, I'm going to make the push for the "marginal" member to resign or be removed from the BOD.  If it was just a matter of not agreeing with other BOD members, that would be one thing.  But, the outright lying, use of privacy protected information, backdoor channeling to get "No" votes when they voted "Yes" - that is NOT ok.  There are genuine concerns about their integrity.  Time to take action on this and put a stop to it.



Kal said:


> Marriott is going to turn us upside down and shake every dollar out of our pockets.  Right now we have at least 3 very hard nose BOD members who will put up a good fight.  That should be enough to do the best.  We can deal with a marginal member who "plays both sides", as long as she is not disruptive in moving forward.  That's the problem.  Most owners pay little if any attention to the big picture.  When there is a voice which muddies the water, the fail safe position is vote NO.
> 
> It's bad enough that the roll-out could have been much better, but Marriott will be singing a happy tune, all the way to the bank.


----------



## JanT

They didn't say what the % of votes were on each item.



chrisbellows said:


> I did not hear any percentages, I was wondering as well.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> Time to take action on this and put a stop to it.



I agree with Kal. This was the owners' best chance. MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future. The owners' anger over mismanagement caught them by surprise -- hence the strong-arming and cat-fishing tactics.


----------



## JanT

No, they did not reveal that.



dioxide45 said:


> Did they even share the split of Yes/No on the votes cast? Or perhaps that wasn't shared because the quorum wasn't met?


----------



## JanT

Hi Ryan,

Hope y'all are doing well and enjoying life and lots of travel! 

829 owners (some of whom had multiple weeks). Total of 52.8% of ownership voted. 2/3's of the vote was required to pass each item but that wasn't met. They did not reveal the split of "No" vs "Yes" votes. It would be interesting to know but I suspect the majority of votes were "No."

We're trying to get over to Hawaii again this year but not sure if it's going to happen or not.  Too much going on.  When are you headed there again?  Heck, let's get a bunch of us to get a trip there at the same time.  That would be fun!



sjsharkie said:


> Hi Jan
> 
> Hope all is well with you and thanks for the info.
> 
> Did they say 829 votes or 829 owners? Curious because 1 owner may have multiple weeks and EOY owners only get 50% voting power compared to EY owners.
> 
> Also did they say what the threshold requirement was? Curious how close it got - I wonder if Hyatt voted any of their ownership or chose to sit out hoping not to reach the threshold.
> 
> Hope to see you in Hawaii again some time.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## JanT

We'll see.  I'm not sure  MWC is going to go on a buying spree.  Time will tell.  It might have been our best chance but unfortunately, it was so poorly presented to owners there was no way it was going to pass.



ScoopKona said:


> I agree with Kal. This was the owners' best chance. MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future. The owners' anger over mismanagement caught them by surprise -- hence the strong-arming and cat-fishing tactics.


----------



## bnoble

ScoopKona said:


> MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future.


What's the turnover rate at this resort? This may take a while.


----------



## Emerson

chrisbellows said:


> If you want to buy Don Heisler on the SH BOD is the guy to contact ..... he's great to work with and with the market crashing you might find some good deals (you can find his info on the web).  I see you own at Windward Pointe, I love that resort as well.


thanks


----------



## INCHWORM

chrisbellows said:


> Marilyn's character and conduct are superior.   She emails only those who personally have asked her to.   We will know the tally tomorrow,  and hope for the best.


Agreed


----------



## Emerson

GTLINZ said:


> So now the question is - based on this current failure to launch, how long will SH remain contractually tied to MVW?  This indirectly affects other HRC (and even HPP) owners and will tell us how long before this vote could come up again.
> 
> I also may have missed something, but it sounds like the failed vote threshold was disclosed - but not the voting percentages?


Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming more than the yes votes!


----------



## INCHWORM

Emerson said:


> Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming more than the yes votes!


Hallelujah


----------



## magmue

> Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming


So you are saying that the BOD lied to the ownership about outcome of voting during a public meeting? If true, malfeasance indeed.


----------



## sjsharkie

ScoopKona said:


> I agree with Kal. This was the owners' best chance. MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future. The owners' anger over mismanagement caught them by surprise -- hence the strong-arming and cat-fishing tactics.


Disagree that "MVC will ROFR everything".  I don't think Portfolio is a strong enough product, and MVC is still dealing with the Welk integration so not sure the priority is invest in more buybacks @ SH.  And I suspect the vote wasn't even close -- I doubt they are worried about acquiring more intervals to increase voting power.  As I said before, this is a different ownership makeup from Aspen... the majority of owners will never likely vote their proxy unless they are extremely frustrated or angry.

I think they'll continue to get units on the cheap through mortgage and HOA foreclosures (assuming there is an agreement with the HOA to do that), but wouldn't anticipate a huge influx otherwise through the trust.  Sunset Harbor by nature is expensive and there are cheaper Hyatt properties to pump into the trust to manufacture points...


----------



## sjsharkie

JanT said:


> We're trying to get over to Hawaii again this year but not sure if it's going to happen or not.  Too much going on.  When are you headed there again?  Heck, let's get a bunch of us to get a trip there at the same time.  That would be fun!


I just got back from a week at Ko 'Olina and a week at WPORV... so not for a while.  We do plan to go summer 2023, but there might be a chance I get there before then 

Yes, hope to see you soon sometime down the road...


----------



## dioxide45

Emerson said:


> Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming more than the yes votes!


But they announced something different on the call that people here listened to?


----------



## JanT

You lucky dog!!  Sounds like you spent some time in a little slice of Heaven!  I'm not sure when we're going to get there.  Sooner than later, I hope.

We'll all meet up somewhere I hope.  Those were some great meetups at Ko'Olina.  Might just have to meet somewhere on the mainland to make it easier on everyone.




sjsharkie said:


> I just got back from a week at Ko 'Olina and a week at WPORV... so not for a while.  We do plan to go summer 2023, but there might be a chance I get there before then
> 
> Yes, hope to see you soon sometime down the road...


----------



## JanT

I can't speak to what Emerson is saying because I haven't talked to any member of the BOD.  But, I think what Emerson is saying is that there were enough votes cast to make the quorum and of that quorum, the vote was overwhelmingly "No."  Emerson, correct me if I'm wrong.  I thought the quorum had to be 60% but maybe not.  52.8% of owners voted so?????

I listened to the whole "meeting" and there was never anything announced about what the breakdown of the votes were (in terms of "Yes" or "No").  They just gave the break down as to the number of units that voted and in turn, the number of owners that voted (some owners have multiple weeks).  There was never any breakdown of "Yes" or "No" votes.  It sounds as if  someone on the BOD is giving that information out after the fact now.



dioxide45 said:


> But they announced something different on the call that people here listened to?


----------



## ivywag

JanT said:


> Kal,
> 
> I really don't think all hope is lost to leave MWC if that's what it comes down to. People just had to have more information that proved it necessary. They didn't have it this time around. I don't think MWC can move fast enough to gain full control - not that many people will be selling their weeks so MWC won't be able to ROFR. In addition, they have to know that even if the next contract is for 3 years, there is ALWAYS a way to break a contract. If they don't shape up and make some changes, owners can always take action. Yes, that takes money but I'm pretty sure we've got owners who are attorneys who would be more than happy to do pro bono. Bottom line is MWC doesn't want to lose SH and I think there will be some good faith negotiations between them and the BOD.
> 
> Again, I'm going to make the push for the "marginal" member to resign or be removed from the BOD.  If it was just a matter of not agreeing with other BOD members, that would be one thing.  But, the outright lying, use of privacy protected information, backdoor channeling to get "No" votes when they voted "Yes" - that is NOT ok.  There are genuine concerns about their integrity.  Time to take action on this and put a stop to it.


I believe that this vote was timed because the contract with MWC was expiring. I suspect that the contract will now renew automatically and that any further effort to leave would have to be tied to the expiration of the new contract.


----------



## Emerson

JanT said:


> I can't speak to what Emerson is saying because I haven't talked to any member of the BOD.  But, I think what Emerson is saying is that there were enough votes cast to make the quorum and of that quorum, the vote was overwhelmingly "No."  Emerson, correct me if I'm wrong.  I thought the quorum had to be 60% but maybe not.  52.8% of owners voted so?????
> 
> I listened to the whole "meeting" and there was never anything announced about what the breakdown of the votes were (in terms of "Yes" or "No").  They just gave the break down as to the number of units that voted and in turn, the number of owners that voted (some owners have multiple weeks).  There was never any breakdown of "Yes" or "No" votes.  It sounds as if  someone on the BOD is giving that information out after the fact now.


Bingo


----------



## dioxide45

Emerson said:


> Bingo


But if enough votes were cast to meet the quorum, why didn't they announce the results of the yes/no? What you are saying doesn't match up with what others are reporting here and your posts are rather vague...


----------



## dioxide45

--deleted--


----------



## JanT

Is your comment directed towards me????  I'm not trying to stir up anything.  I simply meant that people are talking to board members who are telling them how the vote was split.  I don't personally care if they reveal that.  Had we had the option to speak up at the "meeting" I would have asked what the vote split was.  

I have absolutely no doubt that shit will continue to swirl amongst the BODs.  Until they rid themselves of the troublemaker on that board, it will stay that way.  working on my request for removal letter right now.



dioxide45 said:


> It sounds more like people are just trying to stir up shit...


----------



## dioxide45

JanT said:


> Is your comment directed towards me????  I'm not trying to stir up anything.


No, not at all. Sorry if I implied that. My comment was directed at another poster without first hand knowledge and doesn't seem to be a HSH owner and probably wasn't on the call. If they only received 52.8% of ownership votes, how can someone make a claim later that they did get enough votes but it just didn't pass? I don't buy it.


----------



## chrisbellows

dioxide45 said:


> No, not at all. Sorry if I implied that. My comment was directed at another poster without first hand knowledge and doesn't seem to be a HSH owner and probably wasn't on the call. If they only received 52.8% of ownership votes, how can someone make a claim later that they did get enough votes but it just didn't pass? I don't buy it.


I think they said 52.8% of the owners voted (that’s a quorum) but out of the 52.8% voting you would need 66% yes votes to terminate and they didn’t reach that threshold — but we don’t know the percentage of yes or no… at least they did not disclose the breakdown at the BOD meeting.


----------



## JanT

That's ok.  Probably just my interpretation - my brain is freakin' brain is so foggy from Covid.  Ugh!

There were enough votes for the quorum but there were not enough "Yes" votes for either item to pass. I don't know what the split was but am going to find out. The problem child on the BOD is just going to continue to try to stir up shit and my guess is hope that other BOD members resign because they're tired of the problem child's crap. I hope that doesn't happen because they need to keep control of the BOD. I'm not happy with how things went down but I put a lot of faith in Kal and his opinion is that this is the best BOD he has seen at SH. So, I'll trust that even though this role out was botched, they are good, strong members of the BOD. They'll need to be because this is going to be a fight with MWC and unfortunately, they're going to have to fight the problem child, too.

Yeah



dioxide45 said:


> No, not at all. Sorry if I implied that. My comment was directed at another poster without first hand knowledge and doesn't seem to be a HSH owner and probably wasn't on the call. If they only received 52.8% of ownership votes, how can someone make a claim later that they did get enough votes but it just didn't pass? I don't buy it.


----------



## dioxide45

chrisbellows said:


> I think they said 52.8% of the owners voted (that’s a quorum) but out of the 52.8% voting you would need 66% yes votes to terminate and they didn’t reach that threshold — but we don’t know the percentage of yes or no… at least they did not disclose the breakdown at the BOD meeting.





JanT said:


> That's ok.  Probably just my interpretation - my brain is freakin' brain is so foggy from Covid.  Ugh!
> 
> There were enough votes for the quorum but there were not enough "Yes" votes for either item to pass. I don't know what the split was but am going to find out. The problem child on the BOD is just going to continue to try to stir up shit and my guess is hope that other BOD members resign because they're tired of the problem child's crap. I hope that doesn't happen because they need to keep control of the BOD. I'm not happy with how things went down but I put a lot of faith in Kal and his opinion is that this is the best BOD he has seen at SH. So, I'll trust that even though this role out was botched, they are good, strong members of the BOD. They'll need to be because this is going to be a fight with MWC and unfortunately, they're going to have to fight the problem child, too.
> 
> Yeah


Thanks for clarifying, I completely misunderstood...


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> As a potential buyer of a. Week at Sunset Harbor I would like to know how much this effort cost the current ownership. I am sure that the current owners would also like to know. Just the legal fees alone I am sure are substantial.
> Also, now this heavily damaged BOD will have to start the 2023 budget process as it is my understanding that a budget meeting is scheduled in just about a month. Something tells me that the timing of this exit vote was the start of a very big surprise for the owners!



Better question, how much would the potential settlement with Marriott be if the BOD did not seek legal advice?


----------



## AJCts411

Some of the realization of how little no votes it would of took to fail the motions.  We do not have the true numbers yet. It will come out.  But certainly one can see the up hill battle in passing with a 66% yes.  


weeks (1 vote per week) as BOD reported2040​Electronic votes1195​Paper votes42​Total week votes1237​Owners who voted ..... Marriott = 1 owner785​Owners paper votes42​Total owner votes826​Quorum reached52.80%​Votes cast = there is a discrepancy, used BOD number. 1077​For yes to pass =66%​Votes  =711​For NO to succeed votes =377​Marriott-portfolio votes =156​Developer votes = Estimated BOD disclosed this in minutes.12​NO votes  by Marriott/Developer168​Of votes cast =16%​OWNER NO to fail-min.221​Of votes cast21%​

Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion.  52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes.  I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters.   And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> Some of the realization of how little no votes it would of took to fail the motions.  We do not have the true numbers yet. It will come out.  But certainly one can see the up hill battle in passing with a 66% yes.
> 
> 
> weeks (1 vote per week) as BOD reported2040​Electronic votes1195​Paper votes42​Total week votes1237​Owners who voted ..... Marriott = 1 owner785​Owners paper votes42​Total owner votes826​Quorum reached52.80%​Votes cast = there is a discrepancy, used BOD number.1077​For yes to pass =66%​Votes  =711​For NO to succeed votes =377​Marriott-portfolio votes =156​Developer votes = Estimated BOD disclosed this in minutes.12​NO votes  by Marriott/Developer168​Of votes cast =16%​OWNER NO to fail-min.221​Of votes cast21%​
> 
> Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion.  52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes.  I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters.   And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.


What’s your point! That was all known before the Sunset Harbor board even started this effort. The bar is very high and the way this thing was rolled out, and with one board member torpedoing the effort it never had a chance. 
The Sunset Harbor board knows the yes/no tally and the $$$ question is why didn’t they release it? But, then again, you know why the didn’t. The board should release the yes/no count and the total cost of this effort!


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> What’s your point! That was all known before the Sunset Harbor board even started this effort. The bar is very high and the way this thing was rolled out, and with one board member torpedoing the effort it never had a chance.
> The Sunset Harbor board knows the yes/no tally and the $$$ question is why didn’t they release it? But, then again, you know why the didn’t. The board should release the yes/no count and the total cost of this effort!


I know  what? More conspiracy from the non owner.   Know is the BOD will be releasing minutes with numbers...how detailed don't know neither would a non owner know.   Sorry that disclosing the ease at which Marriot can scuttle a vote with low turn out participation  pains you the non owner.


----------



## sjsharkie

AJCts411 said:


> Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion.  52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes.  I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters.   And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.


IMHO, most don't care.  Again, we are not talking about Aspen where fractional and bundled ownerships are a good chunk of the owners.  We are likely looking at single EY and EOY week owners who throw away the proxy when they receive it.  Those of us who participate in a timeshare forum are likely the minority of ownership...

This is why we see a good number of brand name timeshare boards that are filled with employees of those entities and why it is almost impossible to vote them out.


----------



## SueDonJ

AJCts411 said:


> ... I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters. ...


There were a couple owners in this thread who said they didn't even get a ballot, right? Considering that TUGgers represent only a very small number of owners already, I'd also question how many owners overall actually had no idea that this effort was underway.


----------



## Emerson

AJCts411 said:


> I know  what? More conspiracy from the non owner.   Know is the BOD will be releasing minutes with numbers...how detailed don't know neither would a non owner know.   Sorry that disclosing the ease at which Marriot can scuttle a vote with low turn out participation  pains you the non owner.


Do you know what a rhetorical statement is? Of course you don’t know what the vote was. But I will make you a wager that the no votes far exceeded the yes votes. What do you want to wager?


----------



## magmue

> What’s your point! That was all known before the Sunset Harbor board even started this effort. The bar is very high....


I don't have a dog in this fight, but have been reading along with interest. I am an owner at Kauai Beach Villas, where a BOD with an owner majority didn't renew Wyndham's management contract (consensus among owners was that KBV was being neglected to Wyndham's longterm benefit) and awarded it to Grand Pacific for 3 years. The owners were very pleased with progress under GPR, but when the contract came due for renewal, Wyndham staged a hostile takeover of the board (using last minute legal shenanigans at the annual meeting) and installed a majority Wyndhham aligned aligned BOD. Lo and behold, the management contract went back to Wyndham.



> .... the way this thing was rolled out, and with one board member torpedoing the effort it never had a chance.


You forgot to add the intense lobbying efforts of non-owners here on TUG and elsewhere as a significant thumb on the scale. Non-owners who want to keep trading into Sunset Harbor and are therefore aligned with the interests of Marriott/Hyatt as opposed to the best interests of Sunset Harbor owners.


----------



## AJCts411

Emerson said:


> . But I will make you a wager that the no votes far exceeded the yes votes. What do you want to wager?


The number of votes is not why the post.  It is about how few it can take to sway the vote to Marriot.  And the importance that a huge majority of owners  should, and do actually vote to dilute Marriots influence.  That did not happen

  I don't agree that there so many owners had no clue as to what was going on.  Never received a email nor where contacted by mail.  42 mail in votes supports this.  But I do agree only a small percent are here on tug.


----------



## Bunk

Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision?

I'm reading the Florida time-share statute.  I don't think that the developer, i.e., Marriott, has the right to vote in the decision as to whether to terminate the relationship with the managing agent.  

If I am reading this correctly, it would mean that in Florida, the purchase of units pursuant to its exercise of the right of refusa should not preclude the remaining purchasers from booting out the managing agent. 

Here is what the Florida statute says about terminating the managing agent (my emphasis added):




CHAPTER 721
VACATION AND TIMESHARE PLANS
PART I
VACATION PLANS AND TIMESHARING
(ss. 721.01-721.32)



721.14 Discharge of managing entity.—
(1) If timeshare estates are being sold to purchasers of a timeshare plan, any contract between the owners’ association and a manager or management firm shall be automatically renewable every 3 years, beginning with the third year after the owners’ association is first created, unless the purchasers vote to discharge the manager or management firm. Such a vote shall be conducted by the board of administration of the owners’ association. *The manager or management firm shall be deemed discharged if at least 66 percent of the purchasers voting, which shall be at least 50 percent of all votes allocated to purchasers, vote to discharge.*

The definition of Purchaser excludes the developer

721.05
(30) “Purchaser” means any person, *other than a developer*, who by means of a voluntary transfer acquires a legal or equitable interest in a timeshare plan other than as security for an obligation.


----------



## sjsharkie

Bunk said:


> Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision?
> 
> I'm reading the Florida time-share statute.  I don't think that the developer, i.e., Marriott, has the right to vote in the decision as to whether to terminate the relationship with the managing agent.
> 
> If I am reading this correctly, it would mean that in Florida, the purchase of units pursuant to its exercise of the right of refusa should not preclude the remaining purchasers from booting out the managing agent.


IMHO, I don't think the DC trust or any other entity Marriott uses to hold reclaimed intervals is considered the developer either.


----------



## echino

sjsharkie said:


> IMHO, I don't think the DC trust or any other entity Marriott uses to hold reclaimed intervals is considered the developer either.



Not considered "developer" for voting.

But considered "developer" for ROFR.


----------



## SueDonJ

Bunk said:


> Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision? ...



Good question. For what's it worth, in the BOD-member-led revolt at a Marriott resort that I've mentioned in this thread, Marriott did not vote certain issues. If I'm remembering correctly at the time some people took that as an indication that Marriott believed it was in the wrong and was worried about losing any legal challenges, until it was pointed out that Marriott's entitlement to vote its shares for certain issues was governed by local laws and/or stipulated in the the Timesharing Plan and Management Agreement docs. Ultimately that effort failed because Marriott fought every step of the way to the extent it could, and the resort remains as an MVC-branded resort.


----------



## RM@SH

chrisbellows said:


> Marilyn's character and conduct are superior.   She emails only those who personally have asked her to.   We will know the tally tomorrow,  and hope for the best.


YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!  She has become the focus on all the slinging here only because she keeps an open mind about issues and takes the time to sort out the good and the bad.  She is the only board member to communicate with owners and as you stated, only emails those who have requested to be on her list.  Her email list is from well before she became a board member.  She started the list to only help owners communicate their requests to buy, sell or rent.  If the board in general would communicate like Marilyn does, this vote may have been different.


----------



## JanT

And you are absolutely wrong about this.  What you've said here is not true.



RM@SH said:


> She is the only board member to communicate with owners


----------



## alameda94501

The original developer SUNSET HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP only needs to maintain one unit week so that they can continue to exercise ROFR even if a Yes vote goes through.

They sold all the remaining (voting) unit weeks to a different entity, HPC DEVELOPER LLC.  Even though it says "developer" in the name, it seems like HPC DEVELOPER LLC where all the unit weeks for Portfolio lie should be considered a "purchaser" since they purchased the unit weeks (last for $207,776 for 28 unit weeks, see attached).





Bunk said:


> Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision?
> 
> I'm reading the Florida time-share statute.  I don't think that the developer, i.e., Marriott, has the right to vote in the decision as to whether to terminate the relationship with the managing agent.
> 
> If I am reading this correctly, it would mean that in Florida, the purchase of units pursuant to its exercise of the right of refusa should not preclude the remaining purchasers from booting out the managing agent.
> 
> Here is what the Florida statute says about terminating the managing agent (my emphasis added):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHAPTER 721
> VACATION AND TIMESHARE PLANS
> PART I
> VACATION PLANS AND TIMESHARING
> (ss. 721.01-721.32)
> 
> 
> 721.14 Discharge of managing entity.—
> (1) If timeshare estates are being sold to purchasers of a timeshare plan, any contract between the owners’ association and a manager or management firm shall be automatically renewable every 3 years, beginning with the third year after the owners’ association is first created, unless the purchasers vote to discharge the manager or management firm. Such a vote shall be conducted by the board of administration of the owners’ association. *The manager or management firm shall be deemed discharged if at least 66 percent of the purchasers voting, which shall be at least 50 percent of all votes allocated to purchasers, vote to discharge.*
> 
> The definition of Purchaser excludes the developer
> 
> 721.05
> (30) “Purchaser” means any person, *other than a developer*, who by means of a voluntary transfer acquires a legal or equitable interest in a timeshare plan other than as security for an obligation.


----------



## JanT

There are two different lists.  Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No."  She doesn't get that luxury.  She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent.  She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD.  I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.

There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act).  She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past.  HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.



RM@SH said:


> Her email list is from well before she became a board member.  She started the list to only help owners communicate their requests to buy, sell or rent.


----------



## SUN-N-Fun

JanT said:


> There are two different lists.  Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No."  She doesn't get that luxury.  She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent.  She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD.  I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.
> 
> There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act).  She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past.  HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.



Why is owner information protected by the privacy ACT? It appears FL 721 records requirement requires the BOD to supply a detailed member list (as well as a ton of other stuff) within 10 days upon request.

Im new to Tug and I’m new to Sunset Harbor what am I missing? What member info is protected by the privacy act? FL has a very open public record laws for real estate and HOA memberships.


----------



## SteveinHNL

JanT said:


> There are two different lists.  Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No."  She doesn't get that luxury.  She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent.  She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD.  I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.
> 
> There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act).  She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past.  HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.



It could also be viewed that a director who votes in support of presenting the proposals for an owners’ vote does not have to be in favor of the actual proposals, and so it would not seem inappropriate to vote “yes, the owners should decide the issue,” and subsequently present her position as to why the owners should exercise their votes to vote down the proposals.


----------



## RM@SH

JanT said:


> And you are absolutely wrong about this. What you've said here is not true.


I reached out to other board members for information and received no responses. There was a campaigning email sent by a board member with no information other than how bad Hyatt is. Marilyn is getting a bad wrap just because she wanted more information and the board members that died Hyatt are golden. I will say again, with more information and better communication with the owners including taking the time to be sure they had accurate contact info, both questions may have passed with yes votes.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## RM@SH

JanT said:


> There are two different lists. Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No." She doesn't get that luxury. She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent. She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD. I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.
> 
> There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act). She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past. HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.


I get all her emails. Please provide a copy of any email that is how you describe it. I do not believe it exists.
One email I did see that only went to those subscribed to her list was not to sway anyone. She was just hoping for more information on the Hyatt alternatives.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


----------



## jabberwocky

SteveinHNL said:


> It could also be viewed that a director who votes in support of presenting the proposals for an owners’ vote does not have to be in favor of the actual proposals, and so it would not seem inappropriate to vote “yes, the owners should decide the issue,” and subsequently present her position as to why the owners should exercise their votes to vote down the proposals.


Then this person should not be on the board. If a decision has been made everyone on the board should abide by it and not work to undermine that decision (you don’t necessarily have to actively support it). There are certain responsibilities you have as a board member and this member has clearly failed.


----------



## kwsunset

AJCts411 said:


> Some of the realization of how little no votes it would of took to fail the motions.  We do not have the true numbers yet. It will come out.  But certainly one can see the up hill battle in passing with a 66% yes.
> 
> 
> weeks (1 vote per week) as BOD reported2040​Electronic votes1195​Paper votes42​Total week votes1237​Owners who voted ..... Marriott = 1 owner785​Owners paper votes42​Total owner votes826​Quorum reached52.80%​Votes cast = there is a discrepancy, used BOD number.1077​For yes to pass =66%​Votes  =711​For NO to succeed votes =377​Marriott-portfolio votes =156​Developer votes = Estimated BOD disclosed this in minutes.12​NO votes  by Marriott/Developer168​Of votes cast =16%​OWNER NO to fail-min.221​Of votes cast21%​
> 
> Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion.  52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes.  I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters.   And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.
> [/QU





JanT said:


> And both issues failed.  Total of 829 owners voted - 52.8%
> 
> The vote to terminate the management contract failed as it did not meet the vote threshold.
> 
> The vote to terminate club membership failed as it did not meet the vote threshold.
> 
> It was stated that the BOD had reached out to MWC in the past few weeks and they have been working together over the past few weeks to address some issues that have been festering for years.  They said they are making good progress on making some changes to governance documents and other changes to 7 salient areas of concern.  They wrapped it up by thanking SH members for continuing to trust Hyatt/MWC with SH.
> 
> Well, yeah, not sure that's really the case but we left it in their hands for now.  Doesn't mean there won't be a more informed push to get rid of them if they don't step up the damned game and take care of these issues.


Thank You for posting. As a Sunset Harbor owner, we still have not been told how the vote went. Not sure if they said when it would be posted..


----------



## JanT

You're welcome.  They announced it during the tele-meeting on the 14th.  I'm sure they'll send out a letter to all owners with the information.



kwsunset said:


> Thank You for posting. As a Sunset Harbor owner, we still have not been told how the vote went. Not sure if they said when it would be posted..


----------



## SteveinHNL

jabberwocky said:


> Then this person should not be on the board. If a decision has been made everyone on the board should abide by it and not work to undermine that decision (you don’t necessarily have to actively support it). There are certain responsibilities you have as a board member and this member has clearly failed.


If the Board made a decision that management should change them yes l agree.  Id the Board made a decision that the issue of management change should be considered and the Board did not vote on that exact issue then I don’t necessarily agree.  What was the actual motion that the Board acted and voted upon?


----------



## Lingber

An email is out with the actual counts. It doesn’t want to copy for me, but I am sure someone will post them.


----------



## JanT

Steve,

The BOD voted it was best to terminate the management agreement and for SH to leave HRC.  All BOD members agreed on that. Then at the meeting on 9 May 2022, they took a vote to present their decision to the owners at SH.  The board members voted "Yes" unanimously.  There was one board member missing and that was Don Heisler.  The other board member I'm talking about who did an abrupt about-face and started working behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD was at the meeting and voted "Yes" even though they later told many others that they voted "No."



SteveinHNL said:


> If the Board made a decision that management should change them yes l agree.  Id the Board made a decision that the issue of management change should be considered and the Board did not vote on that exact issue then I don’t necessarily agree.  What was the actual motion that the Board acted and voted upon?


----------



## dsmrp

On one hand I was disappointed that the vote to leave Hyatt-Marriott failed, as I believe the mgmt & maintenance fees are high in comparison to other KW resorts.
But OTOH, selfishly like having the option to possibly stay at SH, even tho' it maybe several years before we would try to.

Hope mgmt will continue to negotiate with BOD in good faith.


----------



## SteveinHNL

JanT said:


> Steve,
> 
> The BOD voted it was best to terminate the management agreement and for SH to leave HRC.  All BOD members agreed on that. Then at the meeting on 9 May 2022, they took a vote to present their decision to the owners at SH.  The board members voted "Yes" unanimously.  There was one board member missing and that was Don Heisler.  The other board member I'm talking about who did an abrupt about-face and started working behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD was at the meeting and voted "Yes" even though they later told many others that they voted "No."


 How weird.   Understandable why that would be upsetting.


----------



## dioxide45

Did an email go out to owners a few hours ago about the results of the vote?


----------



## Kal

RM@SH said:


> I get all her emails. Please provide a copy of any email that is how you describe it. I do not believe it exists.
> One email I did see that only went to those subscribed to her list was not to sway anyone. She was just hoping for more information on the Hyatt alternatives.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk


I am one recipient of that email that contained detailed information on the 2000 HSH owners.  I have that document on file.  I will not provide the document to anyone as it contains confidential information.  IF you are a HSH owner, please give me your name and I will provide you with your home address and the unit/weeks owned.


----------



## AJCts411

They are indeed high.  While our maintence fess are going up substancially under Marriot, Banyan has reported that the 2023 maintenance fees will be going down.  Estimated $1100 down to $940.  Same labor market, same weather environment, same Key West.




dsmrp said:


> On one hand I was disappointed that the vote to leave Hyatt-Marriott failed, as I believe the mgmt & maintenance fees are high in comparison to other KW resorts.
> But OTOH, selfishly like having the option to possibly stay at SH, even tho' it maybe several years before we would try to.
> 
> Hope mgmt will continue to negotiate with BOD in good faith.


----------



## SueDonJ

Kal said:


> I am one recipient of that email that contained detailed information on the 2000 HSH owners.  I have that document on file.  I will not provide the document to anyone as it contains confidential information.  IF you are a HSH owner, please give me your name and I will provide you with your home address and the unit/weeks owned.


It's appreciated that you're not offering to publicly post here in this thread any of the contact information for SH owners that's in your possession. Please use private messages for this.

I wondered when you posted #805 if you were trying to prove that you had the contact information for the TUGger to whom you were responding. Now that you've made the offer I've gone back and edited that post just in case it was @chrisbellows' address. If I'm wrong and it was your address, I'm happy to revert the post back to its original text if that's what you want.

***************
I'll also say that if I were an SH owner I would be LIVID that such a list made its way out into the public sphere, knowing now that it's out there's no getting it back. Such lists are valuable commodities in the wrong hands! Yes, it's true that the info is in public records and anyone who wants to compile such a list is free to tediously comb through the public records, but it's way beyond the pale that a BOD member released it. I'd be writing to Marriott at the corporate level: Contact Us - Marriott Vacations Worldwide.


----------



## Kal

SueDonJ said:


> It's appreciated that you're not offering to publicly post here in this thread any of the contact information for SH owners that's in your possession. Please use private messages for this.
> 
> I wondered when you posted #805 if you were trying to prove that you had the contact information for the TUGger to whom you were responding. Now that you've made the offer I've gone back and edited that post just in case it was @chrisbellows' address. If I'm wrong and it was your address, I'm happy to revert the post back to its original text if that's what you want.
> 
> ***************
> I'll also say that if I were an SH owner I would be LIVID that such a list made its way out into the public sphere, knowing now that it's out there's no getting it back. Such lists are valuable commodities in the wrong hands! Yes, it's true that the info is in public records and anyone who wants to compile such a list is free to tediously comb through the public records, but it's way beyond the pale that a BOD member released it. I'd be writing to Marriott at the corporate level: Contact Us - Marriott Vacations Worldwide.


Whenever a poster questions that the 2000 HSH owner list was ever distributed, I reply that I was a recipient.  To prove the list exists, I ask that the poster provide his(her) name and I would respond with their confidential information (home address and week/unit owned).  Even then I would message the poster and not provide it for public viewing.  These posters are trying to defend the BOD member's (Marilyn) bone-head decision to distribute the list.  When I received the list I was outraged and contacted another BOD member to get their views.  That member agreed that it was a stupid decision and she should get significant blow back.

I recall that my response was to "WORM" and not chrisbellows.  FYI, the WORM never responded back so I assume he realized Marilyn's distribution of 2000 owner data was valid.


----------



## SueDonJ

Kal said:


> Whenever a poster questions that the 2000 HSH owner list was ever distributed, I reply that I was a recipient.  To prove the list exists, I ask that the poster provide his(her) name and I would respond with their confidential information (home address and week/unit owned).  Even then I would message the poster and not provide it for public viewing.  These posters are trying to defend the BOD member's (Marilyn) bone-head decision to distribute the list.  When I received the list I was outraged and contacted another BOD member to get their views.  That member agreed that it was a stupid decision and she should get significant blow back.
> 
> I recall that my response was to "WORM" and not chrisbellows.  FYI, the WORM never responded back so I assume he realized Marilyn's distribution of 2000 owner data was valid.


If you keep the contact information you're holding to private messages then I don't have a problem with you trying to prove that you have it, and this isn't about me trying to defend any SH owners for their positions on any of this.

Here's the same link to your post #805 that quotes @chrisbellows. I've gone back further and looked to see how whoever you're calling "WORM" might fit in but to me it still looks like you weren't responding to him/her in that post. (If you're trying to say that @chrisbellows and @INCHWORM are the same person, they don't share IP addresses.)


----------



## Kal

SueDonJ said:


> If you keep the contact information you're holding to private messages then I don't have a problem with you trying to prove that you have it, and this isn't about me trying to defend any SH owners for their positions on any of this.
> 
> Here's the same link to your post #805 that quotes @chrisbellows. I've gone back further and looked to see how whoever you're calling "WORM" might fit in but to me it still looks like you weren't responding to him/her in that post. (If you're trying to say that @chrisbellows and @INCHWORM are the same person, they don't share IP addresses.)


I don't see those 2 posters as the same person.  Maybe it's just an issue with the mechanics of posting a reply to someone.

I have no desire to release that owner information.  I do find it helpful if I'm trying to communicate with a fellow HSH owner that I met at the resort.  I do believe Marilyn was trying to be "helpful" to HSH owners in distributing that data.  Unfortunately, that personal trait is NOT a metal of honor for a BOD member, but should be a key element for her disqualification from the BOD.


----------



## SueDonJ

Kal said:


> I don't see those 2 posters as the same person.  Maybe it's just an issue with the mechanics of posting a reply to someone.
> 
> I have no desire to release that owner information.  I do find it helpful if I'm trying to communicate with a fellow HSH owner that I met at the resort.  I do believe Marilyn was trying to be "helpful" to HSH owners in distributing that data.  Unfortunately, that personal trait is NOT a metal of honor for a BOD member, but should be a key element for her disqualification from the BOD.


I'm still confused about you quoting one poster and saying it's a response to another but it's really not important. What is important, and where I agree wholeheartedly with you, is that no BOD member should be providing a comprehensive list of owner contact information to anyone. That's why if it were me I'd be contacting Marriott corporate with the details of how it came into my possession, because it's likely that it's far easier for the property manager to remove a wayward BOD member than it would be for the ownership at large. (I also wouldn't save such a list for my own use, but maybe that's just me.)


----------



## vacationtime1

SueDonJ said:


> I'm still confused about you quoting one poster and saying it's a response to another but it's really not important. What is important, and where I agree wholeheartedly with you, is that no BOD member should be providing a comprehensive list of owner contact information to anyone. That's why if it were me I'd be contacting Marriott corporate with the details of how it came into my possession, because it's likely that *it's far easier for the property manager to remove a wayward BOD member than it would be for the ownership at large.* (I also wouldn't save such a list for my own use, but maybe that's just me.)


It is not the prerogative of the property manager to remove a BOD member; the property manager supposedly works for the BOD.  You cannot fire your boss.

Of course when someone (Marriott??) is both the property manager and controls the BOD, that line gets blurred.


----------



## Kal

SueDonJ said:


> I'm still confused about you quoting one poster and saying it's a response to another but it's really not important. What is important, and where I agree wholeheartedly with you, is that no BOD member should be providing a comprehensive list of owner contact information to anyone. That's why if it were me I'd be contacting Marriott corporate with the details of how it came into my possession, because it's likely that it's far easier for the property manager to remove a wayward BOD member than it would be for the ownership at large. (I also wouldn't save such a list for my own use, but maybe that's just me.)


Don't get me wrong, it is very rare that I would use information from that list.  In the instance I refer, I lost the contact information for a friend HSH owner and needed to communicate with them.  They are a "snail mail" user which complicates our correspondence.


----------



## sjsharkie

Kal said:


> Whenever a poster questions that the 2000 HSH owner list was ever distributed, I reply that I was a recipient.  To prove the list exists, I ask that the poster provide his(her) name and I would respond with their confidential information (home address and week/unit owned).  Even then I would message the poster and not provide it for public viewing.  These posters are trying to defend the BOD member's (Marilyn) bone-head decision to distribute the list.  When I received the list I was outraged and contacted another BOD member to get their views.  That member agreed that it was a stupid decision and she should get significant blow back.
> 
> I recall that my response was to "WORM" and not chrisbellows.  FYI, the WORM never responded back so I assume he realized Marilyn's distribution of 2000 owner data was valid.


FYI, I can look up the same information on the county website assuming that the ownership is deeded.  It would provide me name, address and interval owned.

Again, not sure what other attributes are on that list, but wanted to let you know that deeded ownership is public record, and in most FL counties, you can search online.

-ryan


----------



## SueDonJ

vacationtime1 said:


> It is not the prerogative of the property manager to remove a BOD member; the property manager supposedly works for the BOD.  You cannot fire your boss.
> 
> Of course when someone (Marriott??) is both the property manager and controls the BOD, that line gets blurred.


I don't know the particulars of the governing documents of Hyatt timeshares but with Marriott timeshares the Master Deed, Timesharing Plan, Management Agreement and By-Laws are all separate documents (among others.) When it comes to Marriott resorts and the owners' Association and its Board of Directors, many of the rights and obligations of a typical association BOD are delegated to and superseded by the stipulations in the Management Agreement. Using the governing docs for Barony Beach Club as an example (and as is similarly stated in the docs I have for SurfWatch,) it's the Management Company that hires onsite personnel, collects annual dues and all other assessments, provides for upkeep and repair including purchasing any required equipment, places and keeps in force any insurance, maintains the Association's financial records, performs audits, quantifies and establishes reserves, is the custodian of all funds, provides to the BOD an annual budget including special assessments and charges which is then reviewed/amended by the BOD, retains attorneys/tax consultants/other experts, contracts for utilities, organizes Association meetings including sending out required notice ... the list goes on.

In addition, the Management Agreement and By-Laws stipulate that the Manager has rights equal to an Owner in certain situations. So although it is the BOD's right and obligation to call a Special Meeting/vote intended to remove a Director for cause, the Manager has the right equal to an Owner to call for the BOD to fulfill that obligation. When I say it's likely easier for the Manager than for the owners to remove a wayward BOD member, what I mean is that Marriott as the Manager is probably better positioned to quickly and correctly fulfill whatever legal requirements need to be satisfied for the BOD to put the vote in front of every owner.

So here, if I like @Kal had received an owner list with direct contact information from a Director, I'd write to Marriott corporate giving them the precise details of how/why/from whom it was given to me and ask specifically what needs to be done for that Director to be removed for cause.


----------



## SueDonJ

sjsharkie said:


> FYI, I can look up the same information on the county website assuming that the ownership is deeded.  It would provide me name, address and interval owned.
> 
> Again, not sure what other attributes are on that list, but wanted to let you know that deeded ownership is public record, and in most FL counties, you can search online.
> 
> -ryan


Still easier than poring through public records and compiling your own list, each resort is usually mandated to keep a Master List and allow owners to access it. They can restrict access with respect to things like making it available only onsite during what's considered regular business hours, or charging a fee to copy it, or whatever other impediments they can find that don't break any laws. In the one issue at a Marriott resort that I've mentioned before, the addresses of all owners on that Master List were all the same - the resort address! That's why a compiled list with all direct contact information is so valuable, and it might be the reason why a BOD member can be removed for publicly distributing it.


----------



## sjsharkie

SueDonJ said:


> Still easier than poring through public records and compiling your own list, each resort is usually mandated to keep a Master List and allow owners to access it. They can restrict access with respect to things like making it available only onsite during what's considered regular business hours, or charging a fee to copy it, or whatever other impediments they can find that don't break any laws. In the one issue at a Marriott resort that I've mentioned before, the addresses of all owners on that Master List were all the same - the resort address! That's why a compiled list with all direct contact information is so valuable, and it might be the reason why a BOD member can be removed for publicly distributing it.


Totally fair point -- I wouldn't want to have to cobble those records together myself.

My point is that this may not be a violation of Florida privacy laws.  Facilitating an easy way to access the public information would not seem to be an issue since that data is already public.  Now if that list is augmented with other non-public info... totally different story.

-ryan


----------



## SueDonJ

sjsharkie said:


> Totally fair point -- I wouldn't want to have to cobble those records together myself.
> 
> My point is that this may not be a violation of Florida privacy laws.  Facilitating an easy way to access the public information would not seem to be an issue since that data is already public.  Now if that list is augmented with other non-public info... totally different story.
> 
> -ryan


No, not a violation of state or federal law, but possibly a violation of the standards to which BOD members are expected to conduct themselves? For me it would be worth the price of a stamp to find out.


----------



## Bunk

I believe that Section 718.111(12)(a)(7), Florida Statutes  requires the TimeShare Managing Agent to maintain and provide to unit owners:  

7. *A current roster of all unit owners and their mailing addresses, unit identifications, voting certifications, and, if known, telephone numbers. *The association shall also maintain the e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers of unit owners consenting to receive notice by electronic transmission. The e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers are not accessible to unit owners if consent to receive notice by electronic transmission is not provided in accordance with sub-subparagraph (c)3.e. However, the association is not liable for an inadvertent disclosure of the e-mail address or facsimile number for receiving electronic transmission of notices.


----------



## SueDonJ

Bunk said:


> I believe that Section 718.111(12)(a)(7), Florida Statutes  requires the TimeShare Managing Agent to maintain and provide to unit owners:
> 
> 7. *A current roster of all unit owners and their mailing addresses, unit identifications, voting certifications, and, if known, telephone numbers. *The association shall also maintain the e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers of unit owners consenting to receive notice by electronic transmission. The e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers are not accessible to unit owners if consent to receive notice by electronic transmission is not provided in accordance with sub-subparagraph (c)3.e. However, the association is not liable for an inadvertent disclosure of the e-mail address or facsimile number for receiving electronic transmission of notices.



Chapter 718 Section 111 - 2021 Florida Statutes:
>>_(12) OFFICIAL RECORDS.—
(a) From the inception of the association, the association shall maintain each of the following items, if applicable, which constitutes the official records of the association:
7. A current roster of all unit owners and their mailing addresses, unit identifications, voting certifications, and, if known, telephone numbers. The association shall also maintain the e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers of unit owners consenting to receive notice by electronic transmission. The e-mail addresses and facsimile numbers are not accessible to unit owners if consent to receive notice by electronic transmission is not provided in accordance with sub-subparagraph (c)3.e. However, the association is not liable for an inadvertent disclosure of the e-mail address or facsimile number for receiving electronic transmission of notices.

(c)3. The association shall maintain an adequate number of copies of the declaration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and rules, and all amendments to each of the foregoing, as well as the question and answer sheet as described in s. 718.504and year-end financial information required under this section, on the condominium property to ensure their availability to unit owners and prospective purchasers, and may charge its actual costs for preparing and furnishing these documents to those requesting the documents. An association shall allow a member or his or her authorized representative to use a portable device, including a smartphone, tablet, portable scanner, or any other technology capable of scanning or taking photographs, to make an electronic copy of the official records in lieu of the association’s providing the member or his or her authorized representative with a copy of such records. The association may not charge a member or his or her authorized representative for the use of a portable device. Notwithstanding this paragraph, the following records are not accessible to unit owners:
e. Social security numbers, driver license numbers, credit card numbers, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, emergency contact information, addresses of a unit owner other than as provided to fulfill the association’s notice requirements, and other personal identifying information of any person, excluding the person’s name, unit designation, mailing address, property address, and any address, e-mail address, or facsimile number provided to the association to fulfill the association’s notice requirements. Notwithstanding the restrictions in this sub-subparagraph, an association may print and distribute to unit owners a directory containing the name, unit address, and all telephone numbers of each unit owner. However, an owner may exclude his or her telephone numbers from the directory by so requesting in writing to the association. An owner may consent in writing to the disclosure of other contact information described in this sub-subparagraph. The association is not liable for the inadvertent disclosure of information that is protected under this sub-subparagraph if the information is included in an official record of the association and is voluntarily provided by an owner and not requested by the association._<<

I read this as the association is required to maintain a roster with all owners names and personal contact information, including email addresses and telephone and fax numbers, and, that those records - excluding email addresses and telephone and fax numbers unless the owner has given consent - can be reviewed onsite and copied electronically, or, that the association can charge a copying fee to provide by request the same. If no request has been made, the association can provide on its own a directory that includes owner names and unit numbers plus the telephone numbers of those who have not excluded the use of their phone numbers for this purpose and plus any other information which an individual owner has given consent to release.

It sure does give a lot of leeway for "inadvertent" releases of protected information though, doesn't it? <eyeroll>

I still question whether one member of the BOD is entitled to take on a responsibility of "the association," which is what happened in this case of a Director publicly releasing a list of owners' names and contact information. I'm guessing that if this happened at a Marriott resort with governing docs similar to those at my resorts, then Marriott as the Manager to which most association rights/obligations are delegated, would not think this Director acted appropriately. Regardless, reading this makes me glad that I respond with "NO" every year that items asking if I'm in favor of contact information being made publicly available are voted on during the Annual Meeting.


----------



## JanT

I've corrected my comment and highlighted what I changed.  *I realized that I was looking at an outdated statute for some reason.  Apparently, an association can put out a directory of members unsolicited with certain information:  Name, unit address, and all telephone numbers of each unit owner.  And an owner can opt out of allowing their phone number(s) to be disclosed.  The information that was sent out in that email included owner addresses and email addresses.  Nope - that's not allowed but it was done.

Yes, email addresses, etc. are to be kept on file and yes, owners have access to that information.*  However, there are provisions for records to be open for review by owners (members) but there is a process for requesting a review of those records. An owner (member) has to request to review records and there are limits as to what they can review. The BOD cannot just arbitrarily send out all this information.

Protected information would be anything that was released that was not provided to the association by the member for official business. If any other information was gathered via other means or if an owner says their information is not to be released and that information was included in that email, there is a huge problem here. There is no way of knowing exactly what information each owner (member) provided to the association without reviewing every owner's record. But, I can guarantee you that not everyone in that 2,000 member list knew (or even knows) that their information was sent out to another 1,999 owners. I don't believe other board members were involved either. If they were, they need to be removed.

I've spent enough time on this mess. The behavior of that board member is appalling all the way around. They need to resign or be removed. I hope one or the other will happen because what they did in relation to this mess of a vote is enough to call into question their integrity and trustworthiness.


----------



## JanT

Yeah, "inadvertent."  There most certainly was a release of information that wasn't supposed to arbitrarily released.  It might be available to owners but it has to be requested.  That board member just went on a rampage and sent out whatever they wanted.  It's going to cause some trouble, for certain.  Appreciate all your help in trying to figure this crap out!



SueDonJ said:


> It sure does give a lot of leeway for "inadvertent" releases of protected information though, doesn't it? <eyeroll>
> 
> I still question whether one member of the BOD is entitled to take on a responsibility of "the association," which is what happened in this case of a Director publicly releasing a list of owners' names and contact information. I'm guessing that if this happened at a Marriott resort with governing docs similar to those at my resorts, then Marriott as the Manager to which most association rights/obligations are delegated, would not think this Director acted appropriately. Regardless, reading this makes me glad that I respond with "NO" every year that items asking if I'm in favor of contact information being made publicly available are voted on during the Annual Meeting.


----------



## AJCts411

There is a new owners only Sunset Harbor group on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/563001245609814


----------



## socaltimeshare

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, it's true that the info is in public records and anyone who wants to compile such a list is free to tediously comb through the public records



You actually may not even need to take such a tedious approach.  I'm not a Sunset owner, but for my HRC timeshare, the Bylaws state that any owner can request a membership list that includes current names and addresses.  See screenshot.  It does also say the in the last line that the list "shall not be....furnished to anyone else".  You should see what your bylaws say re: this, if anything.


----------



## INCHWORM

My goodness people...I've just revisited this site after weeks of happily staying away from it only to see that Kai is still all riled up about some sort of list of names and addresses he has. I, for one,  never received such a list that he says was distributed by the BOD member.  I  received a communication from the board member (whom I had previously personally given my information to) but not some "list" as Kai refers to. 
Get a grip Kai...your information Is out there everywhere...why do you think  timeshare owners incessantly receive those annoying solicitation calls from timeshare resellers and others (scammers).  ...because they can easily access your information and contact phones and addresses.   (Not because you somehow received a "list" and are suggesting it's from a BOD member (even if you are correct on your source???)


----------



## Kal

INCHWORM said:


> My goodness people...I've just revisited this site after weeks of happily staying away from it only to see that Kai is still all riled up about some sort of list of names and addresses he has. I, for one,  never received such a list that he says was distributed by the BOD member.  I  received a communication from the board member (whom I had previously personally given my information to) but not some "list" as Kai refers to.
> Get a grip Kai...your information Is out there everywhere...why do you think  timeshare owners incessantly receive those annoying solicitation calls from timeshare resellers and others (scammers).  ...because they can easily access your information and contact phones and addresses.   (Not because you somehow received a "list" and are suggesting it's from a BOD member (even if you are correct on your source???)


As I said before, put up or shut up.  IF YOU ARE A HSH OWNER (which I doubt), give me your name and I will tell you the week/unit number, the owners of your unit, home address, email, phone etc.  The list includes 2000 HSH owners.  Why are you protecting this HSH BOD member?  She made a serious error by mass mailing the list.


----------



## JanT

WTH are you talking about? @Kal (not Kai, by the way) hasn't posted anything on this topic since July 19th.  So, how do you make a statement that you've returned after "happily staying away from it only to see that Kai [Sic] is still all riled up...?"  Kal hasn't made a single comment on this topic for more than 3 weeks.  In fact, the thread just kind of died after the vote.  You really need to back off on your attacks of this member.  You're making a lot of accusations with absolutely NOTHING to back them up with.

But since you decided to come back and stir up crap, let me assure you that the board member you're so fiercly protecting, did, in fact, send out a list of 2,000 owners at SH with protected information. Just because YOU didn't get it, doesn't mean the list wasn't sent out. It was - I have spoken to several people who are in receipt of it. Yes, some of the information was allowed to be sent out, but the extent of the information on that list was out of bounds as to what is allowed by Florida statute. While most of the information is available to owners, there is a process they have to follow to obtain it - it means they have to personally go review the records and pull the information THEMSELVES. No one is allowed to do it for them. And owners have every right to state they do not want their information shared. Without going to review the records myself, there is no way of knowing how many owners have indicated they don't want their information shared. Did the board member who sent the list out, look through 2,000 owner records to make that determination? I doubt it.

I'm not sure what the intent of your return to this topic was. Trying to figure out if anyone was going to pursue holding that board member accountable? I'll answer that for you - yes, there are people that are going to pursue holding that board member accountable for their actions. It extends well beyond the mailing of a list information on 2,000 owners. The board member outright lied to a number of people about how they cast their vote in regards to wanting to oust MWV/Hyatt. (I have a copy of the email they sent to people). The board member advocated STRONGLY for a departure from Hyatt/Marriott for years, voted as a board member *for *the action to pursue it, and then subsequently for some unknown reason, did an about-face, and set about torpedoing the efforts of the board of directors. They don't get that luxury. As a board member, once a majority vote is taken by a board of directors on an issue, all members of the board are required to stand together behind that vote. The board member in question didn't do that - they simply set out to literally torpedo the very action they had wanted for years. What made them do that is unknown - at this time. Most certainly, research and/or a lawful deposition of that board member will get to the bottom of it. 

Do not attempt in any fashion to get in *my *face about this situation. You'll be fighting a losing battle. I'm not going to sit idly by while this board member tries to bully their personal agenda into place. After a lot of review on this current board of directors, I feel confident that the remaining board members have the best interests of owners and the resort at heart. I questioned that fiercly for awhile but after some research I realize the issue at hand lies almost solely at the feet of the subject board member. Their lack of ethics is astounding and they should resign. They won't but hopefully owners will see the light and make sure they're not voted back on the board during this next election. That would be a critical mistake by owners. So, if your intent was to come here to find out if things had died down....no they haven't. There are people genuinely concerned about what happened with all of this and they're going to make a concentrated effort to ensure it doesn't happen again. Hopefully this clarifies things for you.




INCHWORM said:


> My goodness people...I've just revisited this site after weeks of happily staying away from it only to see that Kai is still all riled up about some sort of list of names and addresses he has. I, for one,  never received such a list that he says was distributed by the BOD member.  I  received a communication from the board member (whom I had previously personally given my information to) but not some "list" as Kai refers to.
> Get a grip Kai...your information Is out there everywhere...why do you think  timeshare owners incessantly receive those annoying solicitation calls from timeshare resellers and others (scammers).  ...because they can easily access your information and contact phones and addresses.   (Not because you somehow received a "list" and are suggesting it's from a BOD member (even if you are correct on your source???)


----------



## SteveinHNL

I'm not a Sunset Harbor but I am an HRC owner thanks in large part to really helpful information that @Kal generously provides in public posts, on his Windkal website (a huge boon for HRC owners and wannabe owners), and even by DM.  The company shills need to just pack it up and leave, there's not a lot more to see here.


----------



## ScoopKona

JanT said:


> I feel confident that the remaining board members have the best interests of owners and the resort at heart.



Sadly, SH owners fell victim to FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. 

That vote was their last, best hope for wresting control of their property back from MVC. And what MVC has learned is just how easy it is to throw a vote by paying off a few people. They likely spent thousands on this -- and will reap rewards for decades. 

Corruption works. That's why they do it. 

And there will be no consequences -- this is Monroe County, after all. They're the most breathtakingly-corrupt county in the entire country. Nothing happens there without palms being greased. I once worked for someone who had a cash-box labled "bribes" on his desk. Every time someone from the county came calling, he paid them off.


----------



## Darrow

Wondering if the Coconut Plantation will be the next MVW property to try and exit the management contract. Have any of you heard what is going on there?


----------



## dioxide45

Darrow said:


> Wondering if the Coconut Plantation will be the next MVW property to try and exit the management contract. Have any of you heard what is going on there?


If MVW didn't want them to leave, they could just build another building there and put it into HPP and control the vote. They may already control the vote and I suspect they have enough control based on the vacant land they own. Though I am not really sure how that works.


----------



## travelhacker

Darrow said:


> Wondering if the Coconut Plantation will be the next MVW property to try and exit the management contract. Have any of you heard what is going on there?


There is a very, very slim chance of that being successful.

The entirety of building 4 is part of the portfolio system. There were probably a fair number of leftovers that were unsold that were added to the trust as well as RoFR and foreclosures. I would think at least 30% of the inventory at coconut plantation is part of portfolio making any effort very difficult.

Also, I really enjoy coconut plantation and would consider owning high demand weeks there, but there is a much more pronounced off-season there than the keys (where sunset harbor’s attempt failed). I would think there are far more people that own that trade within the system, making any move unattractive to them.


----------



## Darrow

dioxide45 said:


> If MVW didn't want them to leave, they could just build another building there and put it into HPP and control the vote. They may already control the vote and I suspect they have enough control based on the vacant land they own. Though I am not really sure how that works.


That’s just the thing. MVW is selling all the vacant land. There will be no more buildings. MVW is stopping the $2,000,000 shared subsidy and the existing owners will have to pick up that loss. $400 to $500 additional maintenance fees additional every year just because of that!  By the way rumor has it MVW is getting $30,000,000 for the land!


----------



## VacationForever

Just an observation, based on writing style, Emerson = Darrow.


----------



## dioxide45

Darrow said:


> That’s just the thing. MVW is selling all the vacant land. There will be no more buildings. MVW is stopping the $2,000,000 shared subsidy and the existing owners will have to pick up that loss. $400 to $500 additional maintenance fees additional every year just because of that!  By the way rumor has it MVW is getting $30,000,000 for the land!


Do you have a letter or communication from the board at Coconut Plantation which mentions this that you are willing to share?


----------

