[2022] Marriott Grand Residence Club Lake Tahoe Resale Questions

[dioxide45]

Housekeeping is 100% Marriott. Owners (and 3rd party renters) are charged a one-time departure cleaning fee based on room type, details below. For guests who book directly with Marriott as a paid rental, the cleaning fee is deducted DAILY from the owner gross amount before their commission. It substantially reduces the proceeds to the owner. Abound guests don't fee a cleaning fee and presumably the costs are 100% the burden of Marriott. And I believe the same for Interval guests.

Studio - $130
1 BR 1 BA - $175
1 BR 2 BA - $200
2 BR 3 BA - $290
3 BR - $390
3 BR penthouse - $415

Doesn’t Marriott also cover 100% of the housekeeping costs? So the revenue they get should be covering their fees.

 

[TimGolobic]

Doesn’t Marriott also cover 100% of the housekeeping costs? So the revenue they get should be covering their fees.

Yes, nothing for the Association. All Marriott's expense, revenue and presumably decent profit.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Examination of the governing documents is key here. The issue I would look at is why Abound users are treated differently (and in this case better?) than Legacy owners. Every property has different governing documents with quirks, but what strikes me as unusual from the description of this situation is that they are providing different amenities to owners who one would expect to hold the same deed and thus have the same amenities.

By way of example, at our property there is no legal difference between deeds held by the MVC Trust and deeds held by legacy owners. All guests, whether they come in through Abound or through a legacy owner, are entitled to exactly the same amenities. However, at our property they have historically treated Abound guests who come in through the MVC Trust deeds worse than legacy owners (the opposite of what appears to be happening at GRC). I asked Management the basis for such treatment, and that was yet another question that never received a response other than "good question - we will look into it."

My own research suggests that the legacy owners and the whole owners pressured the Management Company into treating the Abound guests as second class citizens, and the Abound guests had no way of knowing. I do believe Management was surprised to have a legacy owner standing up for the Abound users; I am not a member of Abound and have no points or any beneficial interest in the Trust, but I do believe in fiduciary duty. Board members have a duty to adhere to the governing documents and owe that duty to all members of the Association, not just similarly situated ones.

In any event, GRC must have some interesting governing documents with different classes of "owners," unless GRC is actually part residence club and part hotel per its governing documents? I cannot imagine the legacy owners haven't already looked into this issue because it is a big one, and I believe GRC has a highly competent and engaged board from the public filings I was able to review in previous (settled) litigation with the Management Company.

 

[dioxide45]

Examination of the governing documents is key here. The issue I would look at is why Abound users are treated differently (and in this case better?) than Legacy owners. Every property has different governing documents with quirks, but what strikes me as unusual from the description of this situation is that they are providing different amenities to owners who one would expect to hold the same deed and thus have the same amenities.

By way of example, at our property there is no legal difference between deeds held by the MVC Trust and deeds held by legacy owners. All guests, whether they come in through Abound or through a legacy owner, are entitled to exactly the same amenities. However, at our property they have historically treated Abound guests who come in through the MVC Trust deeds worse than legacy owners (the opposite of what appears to be happening at GRC). I asked Management the basis for such treatment, and that was yet another question that never received a response other than "good question - we will look into it."

My own research suggests that the legacy owners and the whole owners pressured the Management Company into treating the Abound guests as second class citizens, and the Abound guests had no way of knowing. I do believe Management was surprised to have a legacy owner standing up for the Abound users; I am not a member of Abound and have no points or any beneficial interest in the Trust, but I do believe in fiduciary duty. Board members have a duty to adhere to the governing documents and owe that duty to all members of the Association, not just similarly situated ones.

In any event, GRC must have some interesting governing documents with different classes of "owners," unless GRC is actually part residence club and part hotel per its governing documents? I cannot imagine the legacy owners haven't already looked into this issue because it is a big one, and I believe GRC has a highly competent and engaged board from the public filings I was able to review in previous (settled) litigation with the Management Company.

It would seem that for Abound point reservations Marriott (and the trust) are covering the housekeeping costs for point staying guests. I know for trust point stays at other resorts, there is a reimbursement to the HOA to cover the additional check in and check outs of shorter point based stays. Since there are no costs to the HOA for housekeeping of any kind, MVC must have made the decision to somehow cover these costs. Or perhaps the owners are paying higher housekeeping fees to subsidize the points based guests since 100% of the revenue and 100% of the expenses related to housekeeping on on the Marriott side.

 

[TimGolobic]

Or perhaps the owners are paying higher housekeeping fees to subsidize the points based guests since 100% of the revenue and 100% of the expenses related to housekeeping on on the Marriott side.

That is more likely the case. And similar with the valet discussion. Since that is MVW revenue/expense with no benefit or cost to the Association, MVW can "voluntarily" provide free valet to Abound guests since it is coming out of their pocket; there is no discrimination against an owners benefits.

 

[rcdcowner557]

That is more likely the case. And similar with the valet discussion. Since that is MVW revenue/expense with no benefit or cost to the Association, MVW can "voluntarily" provide free valet to Abound guests since it is coming out of their pocket; there is no discrimination against an owners benefits.

At our property the whole owners refused to pay the rate that MVW was charging them for housekeeping and opted out of that amenity entirely. They even went so far as to contract out housekeeping for the common areas.

The GRC legacy owners might want to consider doing that for their units if they feel the rates that Marriott is charging for housekeeping are higher than commercially reasonable.

And, as a collateral note, I want to make clear that I am not critical of the actual service provided by MVW - they are very good at running lovely properties. My complaint, that I am dealing with through proper channels, is the allocation of costs for those services and the owners' right to choose the level of service they want for their property. I believe that those properties that would like to shed MVW as the management company are not dissatisfied with the service they are receiving; however, they bought into properties where the owners are supposed to be dictating the level of service, not the management company. Again, those Ritz-branded fractional properties where the owners had the voting power all voted to debrand. This was because while they wanted a doorman, they did not want three doormen opening one door at the same time. When our property opened the lobby was more crowded with staff than with guests. The whole owners put an end to much of the overstaffing, but when MVW took over the fractional portion of the property via the Trust, MVW reinstated the overstaffing, but agreed to simply send the bill for all amenities for the entire building to the fractional owners. They then buried the deal, and it has only recently come to light.

 

[igopogo]

At our property the whole owners refused to pay the rate that MVW was charging them for housekeeping and opted out of that amenity entirely. They even went so far as to contract out housekeeping for the common areas.

The GRC legacy owners might want to consider doing that for their units if they feel the rates that Marriott is charging for housekeeping are higher than commercially reasonable.

And, as a collateral note, I want to make clear that I am not critical of the actual service provided by MVW - they are very good at running lovely properties. My complaint, that I am dealing with through proper channels, is the allocation of costs for those services and the owners' right to choose the level of service they want for their property. I believe that those properties that would like to shed MVW as the management company are not dissatisfied with the service they are receiving; however, they bought into properties where the owners are supposed to be dictating the level of service, not the management company. Again, those Ritz-branded fractional properties where the owners had the voting power all voted to debrand. This was because while they wanted a doorman, they did not want three doormen opening one door at the same time. When our property opened the lobby was more crowded with staff than with guests. The whole owners put an end to much of the overstaffing, but when MVW took over the fractional portion of the property via the Trust, MVW reinstated the overstaffing, but agreed to simply send the bill for all amenities for the entire building to the fractional owners. They then buried the deal, and it has only recently come to light.

Housekeeping at GRC is at the end of the stay only, I don’t think we can opt out of that. Imagine $290 for a 2br one time cleaning. Supposing it costs $30/hour including overhead, that’s ten hours of cleaning.

 

[TimGolobic]

Housekeeping at GRC is at the end of the stay only, I don’t think we can opt out of that. Imagine $290 for a 2br one time cleaning. Supposing it costs $30/hour including overhead, that’s ten hours of cleaning.

Guests who book through Marriott.com get daily housekeeping. The rest are at departure. And owners get the daily cost deducted from their rental amount.

 

[igopogo]

Guests who book through Marriott.com get daily housekeeping. The rest are at departure. And owners get the daily cost deducted from their rental amount.

Im just saying it’s an indefensible amount of money and owners are clearly subsidizing other guests who do not pay for housekeeping.

 

[dioxide45]

Housekeeping at GRC is at the end of the stay only, I don’t think we can opt out of that. Imagine $290 for a 2br one time cleaning. Supposing it costs $30/hour including overhead, that’s ten hours of cleaning.

I am sure there is more to cleaning than just the hourly labor rate. You have supplies, runners to bring mid-week supplies. Cleaning supplies. What about when the vacuum breaks down and needs replaced?

 

[TimGolobic]

I am sure there is more to cleaning than just the hourly labor rate. You have supplies, runners to bring mid-week supplies. Cleaning supplies. What about when the vacuum breaks down and needs replaced?

... and countless layers of management

 

[igopogo]

I am sure there is more to cleaning than just the hourly labor rate. You have supplies, runners to bring mid-week supplies. Cleaning supplies. What about when the vacuum breaks down and needs replaced?

Of course. I am also sure that labor is the greatest expense. And, they charge $50 apparently for midweek trash.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Im just saying it’s an indefensible amount of money and owners are clearly subsidizing other guests who do not pay for housekeeping.

The HOA can mitigate this by contracting housekeeping to 3rd party. The HOA can maintain brand standards if they want to stay with MVW, and there are many reasons they may want to stay with MVW as the Operating Company/Managing Agent. However, a property needs a diligent board that is independent of MVW to maintain the quality of the property/brand standards at a cost that makes owning make more sense than renting. I do believe GRC has such a board.

For all those out there who do not have first hand knowledge of the totality of circumstances at GRC (including me, so I did kick the tires), you need to kick the tires on each communication you receive.

In the real estate HOA world, it is highly unusual to have the Operating Company/Managing Agent send any communication to the HOA membership that not only was not approved by the HOA BOD, but is also critical of the BOD.

Bullies get away with a lot. I hate bullies and am happy to help those on whom they prey, even when there is nothing in it for me personally. There is something about bullies that just offends me to my core, and MVW is the paradigm.

@SueDonJ - You strike me as an honest broker who has spent a lot of time educating not only herself, but also the entire forum on some of the more complicated issues raised by "owning" a timeshare. Please do not hesitate if any of my posts raise questions for you. I am happy to share what I know.