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

[FractionalTraveler]

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.

That's the bottom line for us as well. I will just say thanks for the memories and move on.

Well said.

FT

 

[suzannesimon]

I received the proxy for my Key West Hyatt where we vote on whether to fully fund the reserves. If we fully fund, the fees are $500 more a year! This is an option Florida is allowing for associations now. The condo I have in Destin always votes to maintain the maximum reserves.

Up until now, the Marriott maintenance fees for weeks have been a lot less in most cases than comparable fees for the same amount in DC points fees. Is it possible they are padding the weeks fees to make them more in line with the fees that points-owners are paying thus eliminating that argument for buying resale weeks instead of points?

 

[FractionalTraveler]

28% Proposed Increase across the board in MF for Villas at Doral.

http://click.email1.marriott-vacati...4660a5fef6a2a5aa9117a0c649952eb624219a650dd51

FT

 

[dougp26364]

28% Proposed Increase across the board in MF for Villas at Doral.

http://click.email1.marriott-vacati...4660a5fef6a2a5aa9117a0c649952eb624219a650dd51

FT

WOW! I'm afraid that would be the end for us. We'd either have to sell our week, give it away, deed it back to MVCI or just simply not pay the fee's.

Like I said, we've really enjoyed our MVCI vacations but, just like all other vacation options, there's a limit to what I'm willing to spend. If MVCI tries to start jacking MF rates in the double digit range then it's time to move on.

 

[rpluskota]

So does anyone know if the boards are approving these changes? specifically to Crystal Shores on 9/26. Just wondering if anyone has heard yet.

 

[dioxide45]

28% Proposed Increase across the board in MF for Villas at Doral.

http://click.email1.marriott-vacati...4660a5fef6a2a5aa9117a0c649952eb624219a650dd51

FT

It seems that it is once again tied mainly to the reserve fee. A huge increase of 75%. An uneven number also where all past amounts were even dollars.

 

[pedro47]

What is the cost per day for a seven day vacation ?

 

[dioxide45]

I was voting our proxy for Grande Vista and saw this. We don't have the estimated budget yet for Grande Vista.

The State of Florida permits the annual waiver or reduction of the statutory reserve contribution with an affirmative vote by the majority of those Owners voting by proxy or in person at a duly called meeting of the membership. Do you want to provide for less reserve funding than is required by §718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes, for the Association’s next fiscal year?

A majority “No” Vote will result in the Reserve Maintenance Fee contribution for 2015 being $315.93 per unit week. This represents the Fully Funded annual contribution level for 2015. In 2014, your Reserve Maintenance Fee contribution was $244.00 per unit week. Your Board of Directors recommends a vote “YES” for waiver or reduction of the statutory reserve annual contribution for 2015.

Yes/No​

If you voted “Yes”, vote for one of the Board proposed options below: (The option with the most votes will be the one implemented by the Association.)

Between $244 - $275 Reserve Maintenance Fee contribution per Unit Week
(Recommended by your Board of Directors)

Between $295 - $310 Reserve Maintenance Fee contribution per Unit Week​

I suspect when we get the Notice of Budget meeting that it will have the estimated reserves of $315.93. I am thinking this disclosure/voting is a new requirement in the state of Florida. I have never seen the option in the past where they gave the owners the option to determine how much they wanted to pay. If the waiver passes, we will be paying less than what is being reported in the estimated budget.

 

[suzannesimon]

I think it is a relatively new Florida law. I saw it for the first time last year for my FL condo. The downside of not fully funding is a possible special assessments down the road - pay me now or pay me later!

 

[dioxide45]

I think it is a relatively new Florida law. I saw it for the first time last year for my FL condo. The downside of not fully funding is a possible special assessments down the road - pay me now or pay me later!

I don't think that it is not fully funding the reserve. They are not fully funding it based on state law. They have done at least two full cycle 10 year refurbishments at Grande Vista and no special assessment yet. So they are fully funding it to meet those needs based on their cash flow projections.

 

[suzannesimon]

So do you think Florida is requiring excessive reserves and the remedy is that the owners can overrule it?

 

[SueDonJ]

So do you think Florida is requiring excessive reserves and the remedy is that the owners can overrule it?

One reason the HOA Board might recommend voting against Fully-Funded Reserves is that the law stipulates certain lifetimes for certain items while a professional audit of the property reasonably extends those cycles. For example, the state might stipulate a ten-year lifetime for a roof but the audit recommends a 12-year lifetime. Or, the audit/HOA Board can take into account any warranties that extend beyond the stipulated lifetimes.

It does seem like what's happening with the Florida resorts, if you go by what Dioxide copied from Grande Vista's proxy, is that they're now including the full-funding amounts in the proposed budgets and recommending two optional amounts if you vote for the waiver. Maybe it is new reporting regulations in play this year?

My concern with the two waiver options would be that the votes in favor of the waiver will be split and possibly, neither option will garner as many votes as those against the waiver.

For the South Carolina Marriott resorts it's a periodic proxy item and our only choices are Yes or No; we haven't been given more than one Yes option (and we don't get the benefit of proposed budgets being released prior to the Annual Meetings.) The waiver has passed every time it's been on the ballot and we haven't either been hit with any Special Assessments despite the resorts being routinely refurbished with the costs covered by collected Reserves. It'll be interesting to see if similar changes are on our ballots the next time it comes up for a vote.

Also - more in tune with the OP of this thread - it will be very interesting to see after the approved budgets are released if any of this speculation is in play.

 

[JIMinNC]

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.

With "owner control" often the priority becomes keeping MF low, so resort quality often suffers. I can totally understand why Marriott wants to keep control of HOA boards as long as their brand is on the property. They have a brand to protect. I think in many cases, when a HOA becomes owner controlled, the pressure to keep MF down often wins out over other owners who want to keep the quality up above a certain level. Marriott doesn't want to see that happen to their resort portfolio because if HOAs let quality drop, Marriott is forced to take their brand off the resort. With fewer resorts, the entire system is adversely impacted - fewer places for other owners to travel, etc. It could start a downward spiral. "Branded" timeshares are thus, by definition, a very different animal than non-branded HOA-controlled properties.

I view maintenance fees somewhat like taxes - unpleasant to pay, but entirely necessary if we are to get the quality and services expected. It's happening here in NC. They cut taxes a couple years ago, and now our education system and other state services are really suffering.

But unlike taxes which are mandatory, if you don't want to pay the higher MF of a "branded" timeshare, you don't have to buy one. Keeping that name out front helps keep the quality consistent, but it comes at a price.

 

[bazzap]

I am all for maintaining standards and resort quality.
And I don't have a problem per se with Marriott retaining control of HOA.
I do believe it is healthy though to have strong "owner influence" (rather than "owner control") of HOA to challenge the appropriateness of decisions.
And as all 5 of my owned MVC resorts have, for 10 years and more now, successfully maintained standards and quality with single figure % MF increases (often in line with inflation, only rarely significantly higher), I would very seriously question the need for excessive level of 15% and even 28% similar to those referenced here for Crystal Shores and Villas at Doral!

 

[JIMinNC]

I am all for maintaining standards and resort quality.
And I don't have a problem per se with Marriott retaining control of HOA.
I do believe it is healthy though to have strong "owner influence" (rather than "owner control") of HOA to challenge the appropriateness of decisions.
And as all 5 of my owned MVC resorts have, for 10 years and more now, successfully maintained standards and quality with single figure % MF increases (often in line with inflation, only rarely significantly higher), I would very seriously question the need for excessive level of 15% and even 28% similar to those referenced here for Crystal Shores and Villas at Doral!

Agreed on "owner influence." Also remember, based on comments above, there is some speculation that the 15% or 28% proposed increases are driven by some requirement for a different way of treating reserves rather than a reflection of a desire to gouge on MF. So IF that is true, it may be somewhat beyond Marriott control.

 

[Fasttr]

Has anybody attempted to calculate what the MF uptick percentage will really be assuming the fully funded votes go the usual way....or isn't there enough info provided to do that?

 

[SueDonJ]

Has anybody attempted to calculate what the MF uptick percentage will really be assuming the fully funded votes go the usual way....or isn't there enough info provided to do that?

Could probably be done with the figures for Grande Vista that Dioxide posted. It's math - you do it.

 

[Fasttr]

Could probably be done with the figures for Grande Vista that Dioxide posted. It's math - you do it.

I think he posted that he didn't have the proposed budget for GV yet. Dioxide is a mathlete, I'm sure he'll be all over it when he gets the info.

 

[hcarman]

I attended the Crystal Shores Annual meeting for the first time ever. The 15% increase due to the high reserve amount did not pass, and the board was not for it. The lowest category - which I understood to be status quo with the existing reserve fees - is what passed. We dodged a bullet on this one.

 

[SueDonJ]

I attended the Crystal Shores Annual meeting for the first time ever. The 15% increase due to the high reserve amount did not pass, and the board was not for it. The lowest category - which I understood to be status quo with the existing reserve fees - is what passed. We dodged a bullet on this one.

That's great news. I'm not sure how it's any more a "dodged bullet" this year than it's been in every other year that Fully-Funded Reserves (as mandated) are waived, but great news all the same. For you in particular I know you've had problems over the years engaging with the board at Crystal Shores, so I hope going to the Annual Meeting was a good experience for you.

But are you saying that the ballots for the Crystal Shores Annual Meeting were worded similarly to the one that Dioxide posted here for Grande Vista, in that the Waiver was a voting issue and you owners had a choice of tiered Reserves Funding on which to vote? Did the ballot packet include the proposed budget for Crystal Shores which Fractional Traveler used as the basis to start this thread?

Because for crying out loud, if that's the case then this whole panic-inducing thread could have been avoided! There's a big difference between a discussion about proposed MF's that reflect an unexplained 15% increase and a discussion about how/why Marriott notified Owners of apparent changes in their reporting of, and the Owners voting on, the Fully-Funded Reserves according to state mandate.

Geeesh.

 

[pedro47]

That's great news. I'm not sure how it's any more a "dodged bullet" this year than it's been in every other year that Fully-Funded Reserves (as mandated) are waived, but great news all the same. For you in particular I know you've had problems over the years engaging with the board at Crystal Shores, so I hope going to the Annual Meeting was a good experience for you.

But are you saying that the ballots for the Crystal Shores Annual Meeting were worded similarly to the one that Dioxide posted here for Grande Vista, in that the Waiver was a voting issue and you owners had a choice of tiered Reserves Funding on which to vote? Did the ballot packet include the proposed budget for Crystal Shores which Fractional Traveler used as the basis to start this thread?

Because for crying out loud, if that's the case then this whole panic-inducing thread could have been avoided! There's a big difference between a discussion about proposed MF's that reflect an unexplained 15% increase and a discussion about how/why Marriott notified Owners of apparent changes in their reporting of, and the Owners voting on, the Fully-Funded Reserves according to state mandate.

Geeesh.

Maybe some is reading this board and that is why it did passed.

 

[SueDonJ]

Maybe some is reading this board and that is why it did passed.

Definitely, could be that some were encouraged to vote in the Crystal Shores election because FT started the thread on Sep 12, two weeks before the Annual Meeting on Sep 26. That's great, whatever encourages folks to vote in their resort elections is a good thing!

But if the agenda and accompanying proposed budget were included in the same packet as the ballots, and the ballot was similar to the one posted by Dioxide for Grande Vista with several choices for waiving the Fully-Funded provision, why did FT encourage the panic that naturally follows ridiculous double-digit MF increases? Why didn't he explain right from the get-go that first, the 15% increase was proposed and not yet approved, and second, that a major component of the 15% increase was a maximum with lesser amounts also proposed? That's what I don't understand - MF's are already a difficult-enough topic to discuss; there's no good reason to manufacture additional drama around them.

If I'm wrong and the Crystal Shores owners weren't furnished with all of the information that was posted in this thread, and that if presented by FT would have introduced the topic in a less incendiary manner, then I'll owe FT an apology and I'll happily give it.

 

[dioxide45]

I think he posted that he didn't have the proposed budget for GV yet. Dioxide is a mathlete, I'm sure he'll be all over it when he gets the info.

Correct, no proposed budget for Grande Vista. Though when I get it I will be sure to run the numbers. I do have the one for Harbour Lake, but didn't pay enough attention to the proxy because I simply voted against the waiver. Lets hope the rest of the Harbour Lake Citizens were smarter than I.

 

[Superchief]

I just received the proposed budget for Mountainside which includes a 5.6% increase after a 7% increase last year. Key areas which exceeded inflation were housekeeping, front desk, board expenses, landscape maintenance, and internet. I continue to be concerned that MVC is not paying their fair share for the front desk and housekeeping increases caused by the shorter stays due to DC program. I also don't believe the curren HOA is doing their part to keep costs in line.

Although I love my timeshare weeks, I won't be able to afford them if their increases continue to be exhorbitant.

 

[bogey21]

I think in many cases, when a HOA becomes owner controlled, the pressure to keep MF down often wins out over other owners who want to keep the quality up above a certain level.....

How many Weeks at HOA controlled Resorts do you own? I peaked out at 7. At every one the MFs were much lower but in every case the Resort was well managed and well maintained.

A good case in point was my Peregrine Week. The Resort was almost wiped out by a hurricane. The damage was more than substantial. The HOA totally rebuilt it without a Special Assessment. Another was Chateau Le Grand in Biloxi. Same deal, substantial hurricane damage and put back together without a Special Assessment. Do any of you think Marriott, HGVC, Wyndham, etc. would have done this without a Special Assessment?

George