Hyatt Ka'anapali Board decides to charge resort fees and parking fees to Guests of Owners

[WahooWah]

Today the Board of Directors sent out a newsletter to all owners of the Hyatt Vacation Club Maui that they will begin charging a $45/night resort fee and a $40/day parking fee per vehicle to any guests of owners. This new rule goes into effect on 5/1/25 (a two week notice). The Marriott and Westin timeshares on Maui do not charge such a fee. Are there other Hyatt resorts that charge this kind of fee to guests of owners or to owners themselves? There was no warning to owners that this would become policy until today. There was no effort made by the board to solicit input on this decision from owners as has been the case on almost all policy changes since the project started.

 

[dioxide45]

Can you post the excerpt from the newsletter?

I am not aware of other resorts that treat guests of owners different than owners.

 

[echino]

Can you post the excerpt from the newsletter?

I am not aware of other resorts that treat guests of owners different than owners.

There are two other Hyatt resort that are already doing the same thing: Aspen Mountain Residences and Mountain Lodge at Beaver Creek.

 

[Scavanjer]

Would these fees be charged to HVC owners of other properties that trade into Kaanapali?

 

[Scavanjer]

Would these fees be charged to HVC owners of other properties that trade into Kaanapali?

I found the answer to my question on a FB group:
If you, as an owner at any Hyatt vacation club, make a CUP reservation for HKB and use it, then no fees apply based on the new policy language.
If you add a "guest certificate" to the CUP reservation because you are not personally checking in, then yes, the fees apply.

 

[ncaahockeyfan]

I found the answer to my question on a FB group:
If you, as an owner at any Hyatt vacation club, make a CUP reservation for HKB and use it, then no fees apply based on the new policy language.
If you add a "guest certificate" to the CUP reservation because you are not personally checking in, then yes, the fees apply.

We stayed at Mountain Lodge on Club Use Points (CUP) and were not charged the fees. The Maui change will operate similarly.

 

[socaltimeshare]

The Marriott and Westin timeshares on Maui do not charge such a fee.

Are you sure neither the Marriott or Westin charge a parking fee (and keep in mind HKB is valet parking only).

 

[dioxide45]

Are you sure neither the Marriott or Westin charge a parking fee (and keep in mind HKB is valet parking only).

They only charge a parking fee to transient rental guests (think Marriott.com reservations). They don't charge parking fees for timeshare related stays (home resort reservation, II exchange, guest of an owner).

 

[vacationtime1]

This reduces the rental value of a HKB unit to an owner by about $600/week*, because any knowledgeable renter will insist that the owner cover those charges through reduced rent -- at least until MOC, WKORV/N, and Nanea institute similar charges.

Who does this help? Not the owners whose MF's will still go up every year. But it will help Hyatt rent its developer inventory.

* ($45+$40) x 7

 

[Kal]

This reduces the rental value of a HKB unit to an owner by about $600/week*, because any knowledgeable renter will insist that the owner cover those charges through reduced rent -- at least until MOC, WKORV/N, and Nanea institute similar charges.

Who does this help? Not the owners whose MF's will still go up every year. But it will help Hyatt rent its developer inventory.

* ($45+$40) x 7

These fees DO HELP the HKB owners as these revenues collected go directly to the bottom line on the financial statement, which in turn helps control increases to the annual maintenance fee.

 

[bnoble]

This reduces the rental value of a HKB unit to an owner

This is true.

And it is also a good reminder that building a business as a timeshare owner is fraught with risk. There is surprisingly little under the individual owners' control. On top of that, one can often have incentives as a business that are not always aligned with rank-and-file owners.

 

[WahooWah]

These fees DO HELP the HKB owners as these revenues collected go directly to the bottom line on the financial statement, which in turn helps control increases to the annual maintenance fee.

It does nothing to reduce maintenance fees. It merely shifts the burden of maintenance fees from owners who gift or rent their reservation to owners who don't. Many owners would not have made the purchase had this policy been in place at the time of their purchase. They purchased with the understanding that they could rent out their reservation or gift it to someone in case they could not use it one year without additional punitive fees. Additionally, how is it fair to renters or owners who have already booked their stay? This policy was implemented with two weeks notice and zero consultation or transparency with owners. Hundreds of reservations have been booked over the next 12 months. Also, this policy drives down the value of the timeshare for ALL owners as it will induce existing owners to sell and discourage a wider market of buyers.

If any owners of this property are attorneys, please let me know via DM as I am in contact with a large group of owners who wish to challenge the board on this decision.

 

[SChiam]

These fees DO HELP the HKB owners as these revenues collected go directly to the bottom line on the financial statement, which in turn helps control increases to the annual maintenance fee.

Assuming most people bought HKB because they want to occupy it, otherwise they should buy Piñon Pointe diamond and trade into HKB ($2k less in MF). Collecting these fees helps owners who bought it for theirs own uses.

 

[socaltimeshare]

they should buy Piñon Pointe diamond and trade into HKB ($2k less in MF).

This is what some do. Trade into HKB and then rent out for a profit. This at least gives HKB owners a little bit of that profit to offset the higher MFs. People think its hard to trade into HKB, but it really isn't that challenging if you master the timing of things.

It does nothing to reduce maintenance fees.

Correct. It will slow down annual increases.

 

[TolmiePeak]

It does nothing to reduce maintenance fees. It merely shifts the burden of maintenance fees from owners who gift or rent their reservation to owners who don't. Many owners would not have made the purchase had this policy been in place at the time of their purchase. They purchased with the understanding that they could rent out their reservation or gift it to someone in case they could not use it one year without additional punitive fees. Additionally, how is it fair to renters or owners who have already booked their stay? This policy was implemented with two weeks notice and zero consultation or transparency with owners. Hundreds of reservations have been booked over the next 12 months. Also, this policy drives down the value of the timeshare for ALL owners as it will induce existing owners to sell and discourage a wider market of buyers.

If any owners of this property are attorneys, please let me know via DM as I am in contact with a large group of owners who wish to challenge the board on this decision.

Why would you challenge it? Doesn't the board have sole discretion to make changes like this? I think you are wasting you time. I would be happy about this change.

 

[bnoble]

Why would you challenge it?

I'm going to guess it is becaue the OP is a part-time landlord, and unhappy that this will likely eat into their profits.

 

[SChiam]

I wish Marriott and Westin would do this too. Lower yearly maintenance fees.

 

[TUGBrian]

does it apply to hyatt owners who are staying on exchanges or rentals from other hyatt owners?

pretty sure marriott is going down this road as well, at least I was notified there is a 25/day parking fee at harbor lake!

 

[socaltimeshare]

does it apply to hyatt owners who are staying on exchanges or rentals from other hyatt owners?

No, the communication said this is for reservations where a “guest certificate” is added. So as long as the Hyatt owner is occupying the room (from any Hyatt), no extra charges.

 

[Kal]

It does nothing to reduce maintenance fees. It merely shifts the burden of maintenance fees from owners who gift or rent their reservation to owners who don't. Many owners would not have made the purchase had this policy been in place at the time of their purchase. They purchased with the understanding that they could rent out their reservation or gift it to someone in case they could not use it one year without additional punitive fees. Additionally, how is it fair to renters or owners who have already booked their stay? This policy was implemented with two weeks notice and zero consultation or transparency with owners. Hundreds of reservations have been booked over the next 12 months. Also, this policy drives down the value of the timeshare for ALL owners as it will induce existing owners to sell and discourage a wider market of buyers.

If any owners of this property are attorneys, please let me know via DM as I am in contact with a large group of owners who wish to challenge the board on this decision.

A unit used for business purposes (rental) needs to consider sometimes external decisions by others could affect the business P&L. I wonder why the rental agreement didn't include provisions to cover any new costs? I'm sure the owner will apply this new knowledge onto next year's rental.

 

[WahooWah]

Correct. It will slow down annual increases.

Incorrect. It does nothing to reduce expenses and lower the budget. It shifts revenues from one group of owners to another group of owners. You must be an owner who uses their week(s) every year of occupancy. Should that entitle you to a subsidy paid by other owners who choose to gift a reservation or rent a reservation in a given year? If you believe that it does, please show me in the disclosure statement or the plan documents that allows the board to levy fees based on how an owner chooses to exercise their usage rights with their ownership. If you can’t show me, you must believe that it is justifiable to renegotiate contracts whenever the outcome suits you.

 

[WahooWah]

A unit used for business purposes (rental) needs to consider sometimes external decisions by others could affect the business P&L. I wonder why the rental agreement didn't include provisions to cover any new costs? I'm sure the owner will apply this new knowledge onto next year's rental.

Is that how it works? The board just moves the goalposts with virtually no notice, no input from HOA members and no transparency and members just need to adjust the next year? Is there any limit to any policies board members can implement that discriminates owners and devalues their ownership? It’s amazing to me how quickly people abandon logic because they are under the impression they are acting in their self interest (greed). On second thought, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to read these kinds of reactions from people who purchased a timeshare from a developer.

 

[WahooWah]

I'm going to guess it is becaue the OP is a part-time landlord, and unhappy that this will likely eat into their profits.

Thank you Captain Obvious. And?…. If an owner purchases a timeshare with the express right to rent out that timeshare as they see fit for any year of occupancy they choose and no fees are assessed when doing so, should they simply accept a policy shift from a board of directors that requires fees and be happy with it?

 

[TolmiePeak]

Thank you Captain Obvious. And?…. If an owner purchases a timeshare with the express right to rent out that timeshare as they see fit for any year of occupancy they choose and no fees are assessed when doing so, should they simply accept a policy shift from a board of directors that requires fees and be happy with it?

You should just accept it. Owners don't have to pay which is the way it should be. They need to milk non owners for as much as possible to reduce their maintenance fees.

 

[bnoble]

And?

This is a perfect example of what I wrote upthread

one can often have incentives as a business that are not always aligned with rank-and-file owners.

I’ve seen a version of this argument play out over and over in other systems. A change makes renting more expensive. Owners who rent try to convince owners who don’t it’s a bad thing. Owners who don’t largely tell those who do to kick rocks.