2015 Proposed MF's and Budgets [15% MF Increase!]

[pwrshift]

Because a very small percentage of owners vote, MVCI votes for what they own and easily gets their way. They did this last year at BeachPlace and voted the HOA president out so they get a puppet board.

 

[dioxide45]

It doesn't look like this is limited to just Crystal Shores. Got the proposed budget for Harbour Lake and our gold week will be close to $1300 in 2015 if the proposed budget holds up.

A 50% increase in the operating reserve, up $123 from $247 to a total of $370. I wonder what is up with the reserve fees in Florida?

I read through the e-mail related to the Budget meeting and found this:

Please pay particular attention to the Reserve Fee on the enclosed proposed budget. For further explanation, see item 2.B of the Limited Proxy which was recently distributed to you in the Notice of Annual Meeting package.

Item 2.B relates to the Reserve Funding Waiver (Item 2B on your Limited Proxy). So perhaps they don't expect the Reserve Funding Waiver to pass, or they are basing the Proposed Budget on the state mandated requirement and then will update the reserve fee number when/if it passes? I have just never seen it done this way in the past that I can recall.

 

[SueDonJ]

I read through the e-mail related to the Budget meeting and found this:



Item 2.B relates to the Reserve Funding Waiver (Item 2B on your Limited Proxy). So perhaps they don't expect the Reserve Funding Waiver to pass, or they are basing the Proposed Budget on the state mandated requirement and then will update the reserve fee number when/if it passes? I have just never seen it done this way in the past that I can recall.

My resorts don't send out proposed budgets to Owners but we do vote on Fully-Funded Waivers. It would make sense to me that a proposed budget would include the Fully-Funded amount until/unless a Waiver is voted for, at which time the proposed budget amount would be changed. It's interesting that this is the first year it's happening that way for your resort ... wonder what's changed?

[eta] Another interesting tidbit is that we don't see Fully-Funded Waivers on the agenda every year. I'm sure the periodic schedule is mandated but off the top of my head can't remember how often it's a voting item. This year it is not on the agenda.

 

[dougp26364]

Perhaps for the first time they're showing owners the actual figures so they can make an informed decision rather than blindly following the HOA's recommendation. I know I've requested the figures for years so I knew what it was I was voting for/against.

 

[dioxide45]

I am not sure. Like the OCD person that I am, I have kept all past meeting notices and newsletters for both properties that we own. Here are the details.

.....Prop....Actual
2010 ..N/A...$183.00
2011 $197.00 $197.00
2012 $212.00 $212.00
2013 $225.00 $225.00
2014 $247.50 $247.50
2015 $370.66

In all the years that we have owned, the Reserve Funding Waiver has always passed. The proposed vs. actual has always been the same. This year it the proposed is much higher than in the past, with specific reference made to the Reserve Funding Waiver proxy item. Though without further explanation as to if they know if it passed or failed. Perhaps they know that it failed but declined to indicate such?

Also, it has always passed by a rather wide margin. Likely because MVCI has always voted their votes to waive the fully funded requirement. The board recommended that owners vote to waive, but perhaps MVCI has other ideas with their votes?

ETA: Perhaps this is VACs way of increasing revenue? With an increased reserve fee, it has caused the management fee to increase about 15%...

 

[SueDonJ]

Because a very small percentage of owners vote, MVCI votes for what they own and easily gets their way. They did this last year at BeachPlace and voted the HOA president out so they get a puppet board.

Yep, it's a shame the way things played out at BPT. What's ironic is, the President who was voted out has always been a strident voice for owner participation in the voting process. It's understandable that Marriott wants cooperative board members, but the blame for Marriott getting what they want rests with the apathetic owners who just don't care enough to vote.

 

[SueDonJ]

I am not sure. Like the OCD person that I am, I have kept all past meeting notices and newsletters for both properties that we own. Here are the details.

.....Prop....Actual
2010 ..N/A...$183.00
2011 $197.00 $197.00
2012 $212.00 $212.00
2013 $225.00 $225.00
2014 $247.50 $247.50
2015 $370.66

In all the years that we have owned, the Reserve Funding Waiver has always passed. The proposed vs. actual has always been the same. This year it the proposed is much higher than in the past, with specific reference made to the Reserve Funding Waiver proxy item. Though without further explanation as to if they know if it passed or failed. Perhaps they know that it failed but declined to indicate such?

Also, it has always passed by a rather wide margin. Likely because MVCI has always voted their votes to waive the fully funded requirement. The board recommended that owners vote to waive, but perhaps MVCI has other ideas with their votes?

ETA: Perhaps this is VACs way of increasing revenue? With an increased reserve fee, it has caused the management fee to increase about 15%...

I'm not sure I understand what's bolded - if it's an item on which you're voting this year, how can they know whether it's passed or failed? Has your voting period already expired, the annual meeting already been held?

One other thing - has Florida amended the Fully-Funded mandates recently? Anything different about the way they're required to present the proposal with the Annual Meeting ballots? (I hope so, because the track record of proposed amounts matching the approved amounts doesn't look good.)

 

[dioxide45]

I'm not sure I understand what's bolded - if it's an item on which you're voting this year, how can they know whether it's passed or failed? Has your voting period already expired, the annual meeting already been held?

One other thing - has Florida amended the Fully-Funded mandates recently? Anything different about the way they're required to present the proposal with the Annual Meeting ballots? (I hope so, because the track record of proposed amounts matching the approved amounts doesn't look good.)

We have voted, but the voting deadline isn't until Sept 26th. So I suppose that it isn't possible for them to know if it has passed or failed yet. I voted so long ago that I figured that our voting period had already expired. The annual meeting is scheduled for October 3rd, almost a month earlier than it was last year.

 

[bogey21]

I made a decision many years ago to dump all of my high MF Weeks (except my Monarch Crown Suite which I kept for a long time as my treat to my family and myself) and focued on HOA controlled Independents.

One of my parameters as I built my portfolio was that the MFs had to be in the $400 - $500 range. Yes, we had lesser quality but we saved a ton of money. Because of age I have since disposed of all but one of my Weeks.

The one remaining, which is now in my Son's name, Orofino at Straight Creek in Dillon, CO still has a MF of about $450.

George

 

[EducatedConsumer]

Because a very small percentage of owners vote, MVCI votes for what they own and easily gets their way. They did this last year at BeachPlace and voted the HOA president out so they get a puppet board.

The issue of "MVCI Owner Apathy," as it relates to voting, is one that could be improved, but the HOA Boards have let Marriott get away without addressing it. There are numerous things that could be done to increase MVCI Owner voting. I'll mention just a few:

(1) Flyer about the importance of voting in the check-in packet of every MVCI resort;
(2) Something in the villa at every MVCI resort that encourages owner participation in voting, and that calls the owners attention to their role in controlling the physical and financial condition of their resort, by voting;
(3) Mention of the importance of voting at every Weekly Owners Meeting at MVCI resorts, and on every written/email confirmation that MVCI generates;
(4) Postcard and email campaigns that highlight the importance of owner participation in upcoming HOA voting;
(5) The "plain vanilla" meeting minutes that Marriott generates of HOA meetings does nothing to draw on the owners emotions, and encourage them to vote. Marriott knows darn well how to draw on customers emotions, that's how they got them to become owners. The bottom line is that Marriott is paying numerous "empty suits" to manage their HOA Boards and voting, and they've dedicated no targeted energies to increase "owner engagement" in HOA voting.
(6) Those weekly owner "Welcome Receptions" that occur at numerous MVCI resorts, could be another vehicle to increase "owner engagement" in HOA voting.

Again, MVCI has numerous "empty suits" dedicated to supporting the MVC HOA Boards, including headquarters staff, regional vice presidents, resort managers, MVCI Corporate VP's, etc. Marriott has allowed owner engagement in voting to be what it is. You can be sure that if the compensation of MVW executives were based on owner engagement in HOA voting, that the numbers would not be what they are.

Now, about Mr. Weisz's daughter, and the VP that she reported to, who we paid to shuttle to and from HOA meetings, when will Mr. Weisz explain that one?

 

[SueDonJ]

There is no way that Marriott is going to encourage owner participation and voting beyond what they're required to do; it simply doesn't serve their interests. The requirements are that Owners must be served notice of the Annual Meeting including the certain operating/management items that require a vote, the directions to register a vote, and the name of the auditor/firm/agent responsible for tallying the votes. Some GM's send out newsletters that might explain the items a bit further than what is mandated but it's never as detailed as what you're advocating here. Any further "encouragement" from them is a pipe dream, IMO.

Honestly, I've never believed that it's Marriott's fault when Owners are apathetic and/or don't understand the voting process. When you buy direct from them you get the governing documents as a requirement of the purchase, and the responsibility for reading the docs lies with the buyers/Owners. The responsibility for passing the docs along with each succeeding resale is also on the buyers/Owners, and not on Marriott. Marriott will, though, furnish Owners with copies of the Public Offering Statements (including all governing docs) upon request.

I have no idea what you're alluding to as far as Mr. Weisz, his daughter, and the VP. Some context might help.

 

[dioxide45]

The issue of "MVCI Owner Apathy," as it relates to voting, is one that could be improved, but the HOA Boards have let Marriott get away without addressing it. There are numerous things that could be done to increase MVCI Owner voting. I'll mention just a few:

(1) Flyer about the importance of voting in the check-in packet of every MVCI resort;
(2) Something in the villa at every MVCI resort that encourages owner participation in voting, and that calls the owners attention to their role in controlling the physical and financial condition of their resort, by voting;
(3) Mention of the importance of voting at every Weekly Owners Meeting at MVCI resorts, and on every written/email confirmation that MVCI generates;
(4) Postcard and email campaigns that highlight the importance of owner participation in upcoming HOA voting;
(5) The "plain vanilla" meeting minutes that Marriott generates of HOA meetings does nothing to draw on the owners emotions, and encourage them to vote. Marriott knows darn well how to draw on customers emotions, that's how they got them to become owners. The bottom line is that Marriott is paying numerous "empty suits" to manage their HOA Boards and voting, and they've dedicated no targeted energies to increase "owner engagement" in HOA voting.
(6) Those weekly owner "Welcome Receptions" that occur at numerous MVCI resorts, could be another vehicle to increase "owner engagement" in HOA voting.

Again, MVCI has numerous "empty suits" dedicated to supporting the MVC HOA Boards, including headquarters staff, regional vice presidents, resort managers, MVCI Corporate VP's, etc. Marriott has allowed owner engagement in voting to be what it is. You can be sure that if the compensation of MVW executives were based on owner engagement in HOA voting, that the numbers would not be what they are.

Now, about Mr. Weisz's daughter, and the VP that she reported to, who we paid to shuttle to and from HOA meetings, when will Mr. Weisz explain that one?

Ultimately it is up to the HOA board to promote owners voting. These things come at a cost, but the HOA could request that the management company do what you suggest in many of your points. They just don't...

 

[EducatedConsumer]

Ultimately it is up to the HOA board to promote owners voting. These things come at a cost, but the HOA could request that the management company do what you suggest in many of your points. They just don't...

I agree entirely with you (Dioxide45), and I respectfully (and entirely disagree) with SueDonJ's post on this subject. I think SueDonJ's post fails to recognize that Marriott works for the Board, and that the direction should be coming from the Board. Further, if it is as suggested - - that Marriott likes the complacency of Board members that they are cozy with (in some cases, Board Members who serve on multiple Marriott HOA Boards) - - all the more reason, for the HOA Boards to demand performance from Marriott, as it relates to "owner engagement" in board voting. It is clear, that the staff that Marriott has in place, who oversee this process, and the processes that Marriott has in place, are grossly inadequate. Every aspect of their outcomes suggest that the HOA Boards have let Marriott get away with complacency.

In my opinion, the Marriott HOA Boards could easily direct Marriott to execute any number of the suggestions that I made above. The bottom line is that getting people to vote - - for no matter what - - requires energy. Right now, it appears that the tail is wagging the dog, which Marriott seems quite OK with.

 

[Fairwinds]

maybe the threat of rising water in the future? http://www.miamiherald.com/incoming/article1940791.html

The hyatt coconut plantaion up in bonita springs shares a private beach with another resort and a condo development, and they had to reconstruct the beach last year due to erosion.

That's funny! "Experts at sea-level summit" influence maintenance fees in Florida. So the next population summit will send Island timeshare fees through the roof. You know; because the island could tip over.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

I made a decision many years ago to dump all of my high MF Weeks (except my Monarch Crown Suite which I kept for a long time as my treat to my family and myself) and focued on HOA controlled Independents.

One of my parameters as I built my portfolio was that the MFs had to be in the $400 - $500 range. Yes, we had lesser quality but we saved a ton of money. Because of age I have since disposed of all but one of my Weeks.

The one remaining, which is now in my Son's name, Orofino at Straight Creek in Dillon, CO still has a MF of about $450.

George

This is how I have begun to build my portfolio.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

I agree entirely with you (Dioxide45), and I respectfully (and entirely disagree) with SueDonJ's post on this subject. I think SueDonJ's post fails to recognize that Marriott works for the Board, and that the direction should be coming from the Board. Further, if it is as suggested - - that Marriott likes the complacency of Board members that they are cozy with (in some cases, Board Members who serve on multiple Marriott HOA Boards) - - all the more reason, for the HOA Boards to demand performance from Marriott, as it relates to "owner engagement" in board voting. It is clear, that the staff that Marriott has in place, who oversee this process, and the processes that Marriott has in place, are grossly inadequate. Every aspect of their outcomes suggest that the HOA Boards have let Marriott get away with complacency.

In my opinion, the Marriott HOA Boards could easily direct Marriott to execute any number of the suggestions that I made above. The bottom line is that getting people to vote - - for no matter what - - requires energy. Right now, it appears that the tail is wagging the dog, which Marriott seems quite OK with.

Here's a simple idea for getting more HOA votes.

Give those who vote priority on room selection on thier weeks.

You'll get a lot of participation that way, and the cost is zero....

 

[dougp26364]

Marriott works for the HOA and the board but, both are stacked with Marriott employee's. Conflict of interest? Sure. Reality? Definately. Can anything be done about it? It would take a team of lawyers and a lot of M.O.N.E.Y.

Now add this to the equation. Does the MVCI DC trust have a vote? Who controls how the MVCI DC Trust votes?

We're not likely to ever see owner control of a Marriott branded timeshare in our lifetime. When you do, the Marriott name comes off the resort. It's happened before and nearly happened at Beachplace Towers before Marriott got rid of those struggling against Marriott's wishes.

 

[pedro47]

Marriott works for the HOA and the board but, both are stacked with Marriott employee's. Conflict of interest? Sure. Reality? Definately. Can anything be done about it? It would take a team of lawyers and a lot of M.O.N.E.Y.

Now add this to the equation. Does the MVCI DC trust have a vote? Who controls how the MVCI DC Trust votes?

We're not likely to ever see owner control of a Marriott branded timeshare in our lifetime. When you do, the Marriott name comes off the resort. It's happened before and nearly happened at Beachplace Towers before Marriott got rid of those struggling against Marriott's wishes.

I bet you MVCI DC Trust vote is control by Marriott.

 

[dioxide45]

I bet you MVCI DC Trust vote is control by Marriott.

I am thinking that the trustee (First American Trust, FSB) holds the vote. Though that trustee likely makes its decisions based on the board that manages the trust. Which is not voted on by trust owners. It is controlled by MVCI. So the trust vote is indeed controlled by MVCI.

 

[EducatedConsumer]

My take from the excellent comments made above, is that, particularly in light of the increasing presence of Destination Club inventory at MVC resorts, and the Marriott Vacations Worldwide control of votes from the Destination Club segment, that, moving forward, the non-Marriott employee/consumer members on the MVC HOA Boards are "window dressing" for what have clearly become Marriott controlled Homeowners Associations. I'd be interested in polling the HOA Board Members to see how many of them concede/believe that they've sold their soul to Marriott.

 

[jont]

I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that in order to enroll ones weeks into the DC the individual weeks owners had to waive their right to vote in the HOA. I remember a big discussion about this point.

 

[SueDonJ]

I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that in order to enroll ones weeks into the DC the individual weeks owners had to waive their right to vote in the HOA. I remember a big discussion about this point.

That provision was included in the original version of the Exchange Procedures document but was removed at a later date. See this post.

 

[jont]

That provision was included in the original version of the Exchange Procedures document but was removed at a later date. See this post.

thanks Sue, I thought it was in the original provisions. I must of missed or completely forgotten that it was removed.

 

[SueDonJ]

My take from the excellent comments made above, is that, particularly in light of the increasing presence of Destination Club inventory at MVC resorts, and the Marriott Vacations Worldwide control of votes from the Destination Club segment, that, moving forward, the non-Marriott employee/consumer members on the MVC HOA Boards are "window dressing" for what have clearly become Marriott controlled Homeowners Associations. I'd be interested in polling the HOA Board Members to see how many of them concede/believe that they've sold their soul to Marriott.

The HOA's haven't "become" Marriott-controlled - they've always been! As Doug has said, the few Marriott resorts that had non-Marriott-controlled HOA's had them for a very short time before they ultimately became non-Marriott resorts. The DC hasn't changed the fact that MVW is not going to let any of its branded resorts fall out of its control and still remain a Marriott.

"Sold their souls?" Really? Because they don't advocate for terms/costs which would push Marriott to the brink and over the cliff, because they recognize the limitations yet still manage a working relationship with MVW? From what I see at my two resorts, the board members (including a few who serve on multiple boards) are doing a fair job to provide a great vacation experience. That's what I want, why we bought. If/when the day comes that the board and HOA are at odds with MVW, that's the day we'll get out.

I don't think that it's odd for MVW Owners/Members to think like I do, that the Marriott branding is important and something to protect. We're not the minority. IOW, I don't think Marriott has to make a conscious decision to stock the HOA boards with what you consider "puppets." I think it's more likely that it's fairly simple for them to recognize and thwart the few antagonists (in the truest sense of the word) who attempt to get on the boards and/or vote against the norm while seated.

 

[dougp26364]

The HOA's haven't "become" Marriott-controlled - they've always been! As Doug has said, the few Marriott resorts that had non-Marriott-controlled HOA's had them for a very short time before they ultimately became non-Marriott resorts. The DC hasn't changed the fact that MVW is not going to let any of its branded resorts fall out of its control and still remain a Marriott.

"Sold their souls?" Really? Because they don't advocate for terms/costs which would push Marriott to the brink and over the cliff, because they recognize the limitations yet still manage a working relationship with MVW? From what I see at my two resorts, the board members (including a few who serve on multiple boards) are doing a fair job to provide a great vacation experience. That's what I want, why we bought. If/when the day comes that the board and HOA are at odds with MVW, that's the day we'll get out.

I don't think that it's odd for MVW Owners/Members to think like I do, that the Marriott branding is important and something to protect. We're not the minority. IOW, I don't think Marriott has to make a conscious decision to stock the HOA boards with what you consider "puppets." I think it's more likely that it's fairly simple for them to recognize and thwart the few antagonists (in the truest sense of the word) who attempt to get on the boards and/or vote against the norm while seated.

While I enjoy the MVCI brand, enjoy our resorts and think they do a fine job maintaining them, I also recognize I don't have the deepest of pockets and there are reasons I didn't buy into the Ritz Carlton Club. MVCI maintains some of the highest cash reserves in the timeshare world from what I can see and, I suspect we pay a high price because of the MVCI prefered vendors Marriott wants resorts to use. Eventually, they'll get the price of admission (MF's) high enough that we'll have little choice but to either get rid of our MVCI resorts or simply walk away.