Grande Vista 2024 fee proposed to increase over $1000! What is going on?

[Red elephant]

This statement is probably true ... that maintenance fees are going up (don't they generally go up every year with a few exceptions?) I have not heard anything about the first statement (that all states require fully refunded reserves).

I know MFs goes up but this was in regards to the funding of reserves across board. Which would cause a significant increase in the fees.

 

[pedro47]

MFs, in the state of Florida may be increasing more than any other location in the USA.

 

[dioxide45]

I know MFs goes up but this was in regards to the funding of reserves across board. Which would cause a significant increase in the fees.

Reserves have always been funded, and looking at the estimated budget and the BOD recommendations for waiving fully funded reserves and their recommendation of what the reserves should be, it doesn't look like there will be significant increases in reserves for Grande Vista. It is possible because the recommended range is wide, but not probable. The real increases will probably be in operating fee. I suspect most resorts will see a significant increase in operating fees for 2024.

 

[dioxide45]

Does this law also applies to hotels and condominiums in the state of Florida?

Senate bill 4D applies to all condos with 3 or more stories.

I suspect there will be more changes and increases for reserve funding in 2025;

• Effective December 31, 2024, unit-owner controlled associations must properly fund items identified in the structural integrity reserve study.
• Using or reducing these funds is prohibited and funds can only be used for the specific item identified in the study.

 

[sparty]

Can you post a copy of the proposed (or final) budget for Cypress Harbour?

I won't be able to make it to the BOD meeting this

Did Cypress Harbour proposed MF get posted? Share a link?

 

[sparty]

Did Cypress Harbour proposed MF get posted? Share a link?

My work security/firewall blocked access to the proxy site (not sure if VAC or BOD is aware many net appliances do this) but was able to get once back on my home network.

 

[Greg G]

Did Cypress Harbour proposed MF get posted? Share a link?

My work security/firewall blocked access to the proxy site (not sure if VAC or BOD is aware many net appliances do this) but was able to get once back on my home network.

The Cypress Harbor proposed Component reserve contribution for 2024 is interesting in that the numbers exactly match the calculation of the fully funded annual contribution definition, as applied to each Component category, as shown by the calculate columns/rows I added to the reserve budget table below (everything I added is highlighted in red).

However, it probably isn't valid for the resort to apply this calculation on the large Component categories they show as there are probably multiple replacements that occur for some major cost subgroups within them, with much shorter useful lives, over the Estimated Useful life in years for that component category.

For example as dioxide45 and others have pointed out, full furniture replacement happens much more often than every 25 years (say every 8 years for example) for the FurnitureandFixtures component category even though say some fixture item in that component category may last 25 years (say an oven just for kicks). Thus they are including approx. the estimated cost of a little over 3 Furniture replacements, in the estimated replacement cost in that 25 years, and one for that oven fixture item.

Without applying the fully funded annual contribution calculation on each of these subgroups that have significantly differing estimated useful lifetimes, and then summing these annual contribution results, I believe the fully funded annual contribution calculation can yield a much larger value than needed for the component category they are in, and the associated fund balance can be much larger than needed. Thus if say for the FurnitureandFixture component the 25 year fixture replacement was small compared to the 8 year furniture replacement, then essentially you only need an accumulating fund balance necessary for replacing the furniture every 8 years, not a fund balance of 3 times that at the end of 25 years. Although adding in all these subgroups to the table, to show the owner all the detail, could add many, many rows to it which would add many pages to the proposed budget.

Maybe the only way the calculation would be valid for the numbers in the table for the FurnitureandFixtures component would be to add the actual money spent for the the multiple furniture replacements made during the 25 years to its actual fund balance to come up with a pseudo fund balance? Although this would really make things difficult to understand as to what the actual real fund balances were (maybe also list those as well?)

So not sure what the best way to show this to the owner would be.

In my opinion the resort needs to make clear their calculations and what a columns actually means, otherwise it's like here are a set of numbers and Walla here is the reserve annual fee, trust us.

Now that I've put people to sleep, there is one other interesting calculated number being the estimated replacement cost/ year/ interval. This theoretically would be the annual cost per owner for all the components assuming all the components had the appropriate reserve funding balance. Why it seems to be less than what Cypress Harbor has been charging for reserves for many years is unknown unless the funding balance was insufficient over those years, or funding was used for something else, or the estimates were significantly off.

Components	Estimated Useful Life In Yrs	Estimated Replacement Cost	Estimated Remaining Useful Years	Anticipated Beginning Fund Balance As Of January 2, 2016	Contribution For 2024	Calculation of fully funded annual contribution = (Estimated replacement cost - funding balance)/estimated remaining years of useful life		Calculation of Estimated replacement cost per year of Estimated Useful life (i.e. avg per year cost for replacing the component)
RoofReplacement	30​	$14,753,154​	14​	$3,897,503​	$775,404​	$775,404​		$491,772​
FurnitureandFixtures	25​	$85,261,437​	4​	$14,876,249​	$17,596,297​	$17,596,297​		$3,410,457​
BuildingPainting	10​	$2,944,439​	5​	$958,049​	$397,278​	$397,278​		$294,444​
ExternalBuildingMaintenance	30​	$31,491,407​	8​	$4,297,143​	$3,399,283​	$3,399,283​		$1,049,714​
PavementResurfacing	20​	$949,349​	1​	$476,259​	$473,090​	$473,090​		$47,467​
CommonAreaRehabilitation	30​	$13,674,186​	6​	$65,553​	$2,268,105​	$2,268,106​		$455,806​
Total						$24,909,457​	Total Estimated replacement costs pre year of estimated useful life	$5,749,660.40​
Per Interval						$957.69​	Total Intervals at the resort in a year	26010​
							Estimated Replacement cost/year/interval	$221.06​

 

[Greg G]

there is one other interesting calculated number being the estimated replacement cost/ year/ interval. This theoretically would be the annual cost per owner for all the components assuming all the components had the appropriate reserve funding balance. Why it seems to be less than what Cypress Harbor has been charging for reserves for many years is unknown unless the funding balance was insufficient over those years, or funding was used for something else, or the estimates were significantly off.

Ok, I take back what I said here and stand corrected. The estimated replacement cost/year/interval is the average cost/year/interval over the estimated useful life. So assuming the estimated replacement cost increased over the life of the component (inflation, etc), the cost was lower than this average cost early in the life and then higher than this average cost later in life. So that matches with the actual reserve annual fee now being higher than this average value, which is what the fully funding calculation is trying to show.

 

[Greg G]

I am also not sure what that last column is supposed to show? That would seem to indicate they only need to collect $252 per year per interval in order to cover the estimated replacement cost but they collected $374 in 2023. Grande Vista is a 25 year old resort which would have gone through nearly a full cycle of all renovations of items on the schedule and have yet to fully fund their reserves per Florida Statute.

As for the $252, the last time they collected less than that was in 2015. So it would seem they have been over collecting for about 8 years?

After some thought, I was wrong about what I stated about the estimated replacement cost / estimated useful life value as it's the average cost /year over the life of the component.
I didn't take into account that the estimated replacement cost is almost certain to increase over the useful life of the component and thus the annual fee needed later on in its life is going to be greater than it is earlier in its life so the average comes out to the estimated replacement cost / estimated useful life. That's what the fully funded definition is taking into account (as the estimated replacement cost increases the annual reserve fee needed has to increase). If the estimated replacement cost did not change over the useful life then my statement was correct but that is almost certainly guaranteed to never happen.

 

[1Kflyerguy]

Ok, I take back what I said here and stand corrected. The estimated replacement cost/year/interval is the average cost/year/interval over the estimated useful life. So assuming the estimated replacement cost increased over the life of the component (inflation, etc), the cost was lower than this average cost early in the life and then higher than this average cost later in life. So that matches with the actual reserve annual fee now being higher than this average value, which is what the fully funding calculation is trying to show.

We have an HOA for our primary residence in California. Our HOA uses and outside firm that specializes in these type of studies. I have read their reports, but its seems like at least for our that its reasonably standardized and formula based. Our study includes a lot more details than the table above, but everything rolls up to high level matrix similar to the from MVC.

Ours is probably simpler than a typical timeshare, as our only real common asset is the pool complex.

Not certain but I would imagine that MVC and other T/S companies use outside firms to perform the reserve studies.

In Ca at least the HOA Boards are not required to use an outside firm, but they do take on additional liability if they choose to perform their own calculations.

 

[Fasttr]

We have an HOA for our primary residence in California. Our HOA uses and outside firm that specializes in these type of studies. I have read their reports, but its seems like at least for our that its reasonably standardized and formula based. Our study includes a lot more details than the table above, but everything rolls up to high level matrix similar to the from MVC.

Ours is probably simpler than a typical timeshare, as our only real common asset is the pool complex.

Not certain but I would imagine that MVC and other T/S companies use outside firms to perform the reserve studies.

In Ca at least the HOA Boards are not required to use an outside firm, but they do take on additional liability if they choose to perform their own calculations.

I believe at the last MGO owners meeting I attended (that the GM runs weekly), he mentioned that they get an updated reserve study done by an outside firm every 3 years, and then he, the finance member of the board, and the chief engineer look at each budget line item annually, and move dollars as needed (something needs fixed/replaced sooner than anticipated, or is lasting longer than anticipated, etc). I assume most resorts would do the same.

 

[dioxide45]

I believe at the last MGO owners meeting I attended (that the GM runs weekly), he mentioned that they get an updated reserve study done by an outside firm every 3 years, and then he, the finance member of the board, and the chief engineer look at each budget line item annually, and move dollars as needed (something needs fixed/replaced sooner than anticipated, or is lasting longer than anticipated, etc). I assume most resorts would do the same.

An outside firm means they have to pay a fee to have it done. Fee means money spent by the HOA, money spent by the HOA = 10% in Marriott's pocket in the form of the management fee. Of course they use an outside firm...

 

[hangloose]

While my timeshare MFees have increased quite a bit for our Hawaii and our Ocean Pointe property in recent years, at least in those locations for prime time....the MFees are still less than what myself (or anyone else) can rent for similar accommodations during peak periods. Makes ownership still worth it.

For Orlando, if MFees truly do increase substantially (with or without reserves full funded) at locations like Orlando, for Grand Vista...that's not great news. It is a bit of a harder pill to swallow as an owner could likely rent in Orlando (at Grand Vista or a similar property) for less than their new and higher MFees. This makes ownership less valuable in this location for pure use of the deeded week. And selling an MGV week, doesn't get much on return via resale. My 2 cents.

Luckily, my MGV weeks are enrolled...so I can lock-off, exchange in II, and/or use for Vacation Club Points. So, just have to continue to work hard, to make the MFees associated work to get me the highest value possible.

 

[dioxide45]

I just fired off an email to the BOD email address for Grande Vista asking for a copy of the latest reserve study. I'll see if I actually receive it.

 

[sparty]

I just fired off an email to the BOD email address for Grande Vista asking for a copy of the latest reserve study. I'll see if I actually receive it.

I think they will point to what we already have, the "reserves" section in the proposed budget document. Please share if you get a study doc. I will try to get the cypress harbour doc too.

 

[kenpritchard]

REGARDING MGV: I suggest an end to all this chit-chat and waste of time about soft goods, roofs, etc. Look right on the 10-5-23 mailing from the MGV association to owners. The Proposed Reserve Fee for 2024: +215.1% over 2023. Enough said? The Proposed Operating Fee for 2024: +23.8% over 2023. Enough said? The Proposed Operating and Reserve Fee combined for 2024: +71.7% over 2023. Enough said? You can send your comments right to MGV as follows: kiara.oduber@vacationclub.com as listed on the 10-5-12 mailing to owners. She told me on the phone yesterday that she would 'present' all such comments to the decision makers before a decision is made.

 

[SueDonJ]

REGARDING MGV: I suggest an end to all this chit-chat and waste of time about soft goods, roofs, etc. Look right on the 10-5-23 mailing from the MGV association to owners. The Proposed Reserve Fee for 2024: +215.1% over 2023. Enough said? The Proposed Operating Fee for 2024: +23.8% over 2023. Enough said? The Proposed Operating and Reserve Fee combined for 2024: +71.7% over 2023. Enough said? You can send your comments right to MGV as follows: kiara.oduber@vacationclub.com as listed on the 10-5-12 mailing to owners. She told me on the phone yesterday that she would 'present' all such comments to the decision makers before a decision is made.

I don't think that there's ever been a cut-and-dried comparison between [1] MVW's practice of funding Reserves, based on Reserve Studies performed by outside firms, commensurate with its routine 5- and 10-year refurbishment/repair schedules (which over the years hasn't appeared to require Special Assessments to compensate for mismanaged under-funding at Florida or South Carolina resorts) and [2] the established defined "Fully-Funded Reserves" as legislated in those states. Now the Florida resorts are subject to more Reserves-related legislation and it doesn't appear that these nuts-and-bolts are being explained any better.

They have, though, routinely supported a majority ownership vote to waive the legislated Reserves requirements when those amounts would apparently over-fund the actual needs as determined by their studies. I don't remember any resort's ownership ever voting against such a waiver, which again hasn't resulted in under-funding at any resort.

It's never a bad idea to write and ask questions of the board, the higher-up resort personnel, and even the higher-ups at the corporate level: Marriott Vacations Worldwide Management/Directors. Especially in this instance, knowing that new Florida legislation related to specifically-defined "Fully Funded Reserves" has come into play this year on top of related legislation that has impacted the Florida and South Carolina resorts for decades.

I don't quite understand, though, this statement: "She told me on the phone yesterday that she would 'present' all such comments to the decision makers before a decision is made." Specifically, the only "decisions" made by MVW personnel at any level are [1] whether or not to comply (which of course we all want) with any related legislation when determining the Resort Budgets and [2] to recommend that Owners vote (if applicable) to waive, or not, the Reserves as legislated. Owners definitely need more information and if I were a Florida Owner, I'd be one of the people writing to try to get whatever info is available to help me figure it out. But I wouldn't be relying on MVW to change the numbers - this is one instance where Owners are in control via the waiver vote, and it's probably the most important reason for every Owner to NOT ignore the proxy voting process. A non-response equates to a "No" vote on waiving Reserves as legislated, and there's nothing MVW can do to change that.

 

[jwalk03]

REGARDING MGV: I suggest an end to all this chit-chat and waste of time about soft goods, roofs, etc. Look right on the 10-5-23 mailing from the MGV association to owners. The Proposed Reserve Fee for 2024: +215.1% over 2023. Enough said? The Proposed Operating Fee for 2024: +23.8% over 2023. Enough said? The Proposed Operating and Reserve Fee combined for 2024: +71.7% over 2023. Enough said? You can send your comments right to MGV as follows: kiara.oduber@vacationclub.com as listed on the 10-5-12 mailing to owners. She told me on the phone yesterday that she would 'present' all such comments to the decision makers before a decision is made.

That is not the final budget number. It’s the fully funded reserves number which they are required to present. Assuming the vote passes (like it always does) the increase in reserves will be much much lower.

 

[sparty]

I was able to get Cypress Harbour reserve study for anyone who may be interested. I am reading through it now - quite extensive..

 

[sparty]

That is not the final budget number. It’s the fully funded reserves number which they are required to present. Assuming the vote passes (like it always does) the increase in reserves will be much much lower.

But isn't this year different as SueDonJ points out "A non-response equates to a "No" vote on waiving Reserves as legislated, and there's nothing MVW can do to change that." ??

One interesting aspect from the Cypress Harbour study is that the recommendation is to increase the reserves each of the next 5 years by 11.6% and then back it off or revaluate after 5. I am wondering if Grand Vista may be taking a different approach - they need a more immediate increase in the reserves for 2024 but then maybe years 2025-2028 have a lower percentage than Cypress Harbour. From the CH study, Cypress Harbour is spreading the peanut butter but maybe GV is taking a big gulp immediately?

 

[ahdah]

I've never seen a proposed budget for SurfWatch or Barony Beach in SC, but during the years that a waiver vote of legislated "Fully Funded Reserves" has been required, it's been explained in the Annual Meeting packet. I just voted my SurfWatch and Barony proxies two days ago and it's not a voting issue this year.

I'm confused about Florida's Fully-Funded legislation. Does the post-building collapse legislation that requires additional Reserves incorporate the previous F-F requirements, or are they two separate components? I'm not sure I'm wording this correctly but I guess what I'm asking is, is the F-F assessment astronomical because it's like two separate legislated obligations, and, is the newly-legislated component even eligible for waiver votes?

I have a question, I own at SW and I did not receive any information about the proposed budget for 2004. Should I be calling SW?

 

[dioxide45]

I have a question, I own at SW and I did not receive any information about the proposed budget for 2004. Should I be calling SW?

According to @SueDonJ , SW has never provided a proposted budget.

 

[SueDonJ]

I have a question, I own at SW and I did not receive any information about the proposed budget for 2004. Should I be calling SW?

SurfWatch doesn't send proposed budgets, neither does Barony or I think any of the other HHI resorts. I'm pretty sure MVW sends proposed budgets only for the resorts that are in states which legally require that owners be sent proposed budgets, and there aren't many. We'll see the SW budget when the bills come, and if there's anything odd or unexpected then the GM's letter will explain it.

The SW Annual Meeting package came a month or so ago with the voting info (for board members) so if you haven't received that, let me know and I'll go back and look in my email to find you a "sender" that you can search for in yours.

 

[ahdah]

SurfWatch doesn't send proposed budgets, neither does Barony or I think any of the other HHI resorts. I'm pretty sure MVW sends proposed budgets only for the resorts that are in states which legally require that owners be send proposed budgets, and there aren't many. We'll see the SW budget when the bills come, and if there's anything odd or unexpected then the GM's letter will explain it.

The SW Annual Meeting package came a month or so ago with the voting info (for board members) so if you haven't received that, let me know and I'll go back and look in my email to find you a "sender" that you can search for in yours.

Thanks so much I did not get the SW Annual Meeting package.

 

[SueDonJ]

Thanks so much I did not get the SW Annual Meeting package.

My SurfWatch email is dated 9/13/23 and the important dates in it are 11/7/23 for the date of the Annual Meeting and 10/31/23 for the deadline to electronically submit your Limited Proxy (for candidate elections to the BOD.)

If you want to search your email it came from, "marriottvacationclubATenewsDOTmorrowsodaliDOTcom" but I don't think that's a valid address for return mail. The email gives this contact info:

If you have any questions regarding submitting your Limited Proxy electronically, please contact Morrow Sodali by email at mvci.info@morrowsodali.com.

If you have questions regarding the Annual Meeting, please contact Case Spencer, General Manager, by phone at 843-363-3401 or by email at Case.Spencer@vacationclub.com.