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

[WaikikiFirst]

sub $600 listings are not necessarily below cost- they are owners at other Hyatt resorts obtaining HKB through club exchange and then renting them

yes, the "get a great res arbitrage" is basically what redwk & the TS parents are trying to grab their piece of, til they fee-fee-fee it away

 

[socaltimeshare]

Annual or EOY? 2BR? You're saying that the maintenance fees tripled since the fires?

No, I was saying they are up about 1.5K (vs. MF were 1.5K before the fires). I did go back and check though and I stand corrected as 1.5K was an overstatement. I think I was reporting more of what it has felt like vs. reality.

Here are actual #s for the 2 bed:

2021- $2,998.58 (post 18, increase of 3.6% from year prior- https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/sticky-2021-hyatt-maintenance-fees.310523/#post-2542492)
2022- $3,069.99 (post 19, increase of 3.04% from year prior- https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/2022-hyatt-maintenance-fees.327176/)
2023- $3,426.81 (post 5, increase of 11.62% from year prior- https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/2023-hyatt-maintenance-fees.344924/
2024- not reported in MF thread
2025- not reported in MF thread but reported above at about $4200.

So if you take the pre-fire figure of $3,069 it has gone up about $1,131 or about 37%. A combo of the fire and inflation. The board has felt pressure to minimize future raises, which is where this new policy originated from.

Owners' HRPP reservations at HKB are also subject to the new $600 fees if guest certificates are added, correct?

Correct. This new policy definitely benefits those owning to use vs. those owning to rent.

 

[echino]

Correct. This new policy definitely benefits those owning to use vs. those owning to rent.

The board has just devalued the HKB owners' property value close to zero, making it nearly impossible to cover the maintenance fees by renting when owners are unable to go.

 

[AJCts411]

So an owner pays the maintenance fees. Someone uses the week. Explain what the added costs are to justify this money grab? It is NOT more damage besides plain bs, a credit card can be charged. It is not more wear and tear...because someone with a different name occupies the unit! it is a shift to a select group of owners who will now have to pay more than maintenance fees. It is a money grab, nothing else.

 

[MOXJO7282]

It is almost as if all the other players in the ecosystem realized that you can't easily do that WITHOUT THEM, so they grabbed a bigger piece of the pie. Almost?

I'd love to see links to all the rentals that are truly "at cost", other than maybe a few very last minute ones, which are burdened by the need to get a last-minute flight.
Links? At cost. All fee disclosed. I'm from Missouri

You're 1000% correct on your first thought. Its a common path a corporation takes. Its all about who controls the market and communications and with the internet its the richest company that pays the most who gets the majority of the visibility. Redweek knows they're the biggest in the timeshare rental and sales game and can outspend most so they don't care if they're offering diminishing service. They built their success on being the DIY listing platform. Then they started offering protected and verified when a owner ratings system could've avoided the need for much of that, now its 100% controlled. All at the detriment of service and at a much higher cost of owner and renter. So they made their fortune on DIY and then as soon as they had control they changed strictly for profit.

As for the "Break even" comment, I meant they owned 2 weeks and rented one to cover the cost of the 2 weeks or a portion of it because they can't afford to go 2 weeks every year not that they rented at their maintenance costs. These multi-week owners that could make it work because of their ability to rent one of the weeks will find it harder to rent and have more costs associated with renting the 2nd week.

 

[dagger1]

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.

How does it affect any owner? Owners don’t pay, whether they use their unit or rent/gift it. The Renter or person gifted will pay, no? I assume they will pay with their CC when they check out….

 

[Sapper]

Here is my problem with this. Assume I am an owner in Maui (I’m not… yet), in my dues, I pay for whatever it costs to park a vehicle. Let’s now assume that I can’t go, or I’m feeling overly altruistic, and I gift the week to my brother. My brother now has to pay for something I have already paid for (parking) AND some stupid resort fee. Why should my brother, or any guest of mine, have to pay for something I have already paid for?

 

[vacationtime1]

Here is my problem with this. Assume I am an owner in Maui (I’m not… yet), in my dues, I pay for whatever it costs to park a vehicle. Let’s now assume that I can’t go, or I’m feeling overly altruistic, and I gift the week to my brother. My brother now has to pay for something I have already paid for (parking) AND some stupid resort fee. Why should my brother, or any guest of mine, have to pay for something I have already paid for?

Well put.

Plus, it is completely irrelevant who owns the parking garage. It is already paid for regardless of who uses the unit.

 

[vacationtime1]

How does it affect any owner? Owners don’t pay, whether they use their unit or rent/gift it. The Renter or person gifted will pay, no? I assume they will pay with their CC when they check out….

1. It reduces the rental value.
2. It reduces the resale value.
3. It makes the gift of a week to a friend or relative less of a gift.

Other than that, no impact.

 

[jp10558]

Here is my problem with this. Assume I am an owner in Maui (I’m not… yet), in my dues, I pay for whatever it costs to park a vehicle. Let’s now assume that I can’t go, or I’m feeling overly altruistic, and I gift the week to my brother. My brother now has to pay for something I have already paid for (parking) AND some stupid resort fee. Why should my brother, or any guest of mine, have to pay for something I have already paid for?

Yes, it would be one thing if anyone owner or not parking a vehicle had to pay $600 or whatever for it. I think that would be extremely unpopular, but at least then you could logically argue that if less people park a vehicle because they don't like the fee, eventually the resort could maintain less parking therefore saving money.

And TBH, while I like "activities included", I can at least see the argument that like at Smuggs, if you want to use the extra "enhanced" amenities center, you pay for an access card and presumably pay for that service to be there - and if you don't pay, you don't use it and presumably it also doesn't affect MFs as it's per-use charged / sustainable.

It's the things you literally cannot say "no thanks" to but still stay at the resort like the "Resort Fees" that I'm arguing about. I don't particularly care about the $120 cost, I care about it not being disclosed as part of the stay in the fricken up price.

And the idea that somehow owners using a unit is somehow cheaper than anyone else is laughable.

 

[Kal]

How does it affect any owner? Owners don’t pay, whether they use their unit or rent/gift it. The Renter or person gifted will pay, no? I assume they will pay with their CC when they check out….

These fees are a component of the maintenance fees so the owner has already paid. The new charges will be paid upon check out by the occupant. There are also other fees that are paid upon check out by all occupants.

 

[socaltimeshare]

eventually the resort could maintain less parking therefore saving money.

Parking is weird at HKB. As designed, all parking is owned by the neighboring Hyatt Regency which provides valet parking only. The association, through a shared use agreement, pays a permanent annual fixed that adjusts annually for inflation. It’s not based on usage, so decreasing parking usage does not decrease parking costs. Charging a parking fee (to guests) just offsets the impact of that cost in the maintenance fees.

 

[Tucsonadventurer]

What about authorized users. When we purchased our timeshare we filled out the forms and named both our kids as authorized users. Are they considered guests.

 

[dioxide45]

Parking is weird at HKB. As designed, all parking is owned by the neighboring Hyatt Regency which provides valet parking only. The association, through a shared use agreement, pays a permanent annual fixed that adjusts annually for inflation. It’s not based on usage, so decreasing parking usage does not decrease parking costs. Charging a parking fee (to guests) just offsets the impact of that cost in the maintenance fees.

I find it doubtful that this is really going to provide any significant offset. I know for the Marriott resorts that are now charging parking to non-timeshare stay guests that it works out to be a paltry reduction in maintenance fees. For Grande Vista that probably has a pretty high percentage of cash stay guests, it works out to about $30 per unit week for a 2BR. What percentage of HKB stays are guest of an owner? Will this type of fee even make a dent? Probably not and just creates less goodwill for guests.

 

[Kal]

What about authorized users. When we purchased our timeshare we filled out the forms and named both our kids as authorized users. Are they considered guests.

Any authorized user is treated as a "Hyatt owner". If you add some renter onto your authorized owner account you would be granting that person ALL the ownership rights. That person could user your points to book other resorts just like you do. DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD IDEA.

 

[socaltimeshare]

What about authorized users. When we purchased our timeshare we filled out the forms and named both our kids as authorized users. Are they considered guests.

No because you don’t need to purchase a guest certificate for authorized users.

 

[WahooWah]

Before the Lahaina fire, it was pretty common to see these rent in the 7k-10k range and MF were about $1,500 less. Insurance and other costs have gone up significantly, driving the MF up.

Either you aren’t aware of this or you are deliberately being deceitful. The 15.5% HOA increase in 2024 was mostly driven by Hyatt ending their subsidies. In 2024, only about 75% of the inventory had been sold, meaning that owners of that 75% began paying 100% of the costs of the timeshare plan. Today, the resort still has yet to sell somewhere between 17-20% of the inventory. This resort fee and parking fee nonsense would be completely unnecessary if the developer paid their fair share of the HOA dues.

 

[dioxide45]

Either you aren’t aware of this or you are deliberately being deceitful. The 15.5% HOA increase in 2024 was mostly driven by Hyatt ending their subsidies. In 2024, only about 75% of the inventory had been sold, meaning that owners of that 75% began paying 100% of the costs of the timeshare plan. Today, the resort still has yet to sell somewhere between 17-20% of the inventory. This resort fee and parking fee nonsense would be completely unnecessary if the developer paid their fair share of the HOA dues.

I would think the developer is still paying maintenance fees on the unsold weeks. Or perhaps they are now just offering a guaranty vs. a subsidy as they did in the past?

 

[socaltimeshare]

Either you aren’t aware of this or you are deliberately being deceitful. The 15.5% HOA increase in 2024 was mostly driven by Hyatt ending their subsidies. In 2024, only about 75% of the inventory had been sold, meaning that owners of that 75% began paying 100% of the costs of the timeshare plan. Today, the resort still has yet to sell somewhere between 17-20% of the inventory. This resort fee and parking fee nonsense would be completely unnecessary if the developer paid their fair share of the HOA dues.

I have not heard of this. Do you happen to have the two budgets showing this difference and/or some other documentation showing the increase was caused by the removal of a subsidy (and not higher insurance and/or operating costs)?

Also, do you know how many current board members are owners that are not affiliated with the developer or Marriott? I assume with many people not voting, and with the developer still owning 17-20% of the inventory as you reported, the owners may be outnumbered in these decisions, as clearly, not charging the developer for maintenance fees on unsold inventory does not seem to be in the best interest of the rest of the owners. Maybe this is where the focus needs to be (getting voters to vote).

 

[Norcal5]

I have not heard of this. Do you happen to have the two budgets showing this difference and/or some other documentation showing the increase was caused by the removal of a subsidy (and not higher insurance and/or operating costs)?

Also, do you know how many current board members are owners that are not affiliated with the developer or Marriott? I assume with many people not voting, and with the developer still owning 17-20% of the inventory as you reported, the owners may be outnumbered in these decisions, as clearly, not charging the developer for maintenance fees on unsold inventory does not seem to be in the best interest of the rest of the owners. Maybe this is where the focus needs to be (getting voters to vote).

Since I rarely see inventory available on Hyatt.com, I assume that this 17-20% of developer inventory has been rented out, and (if we the owners have paid the maintenance fees) that the profits, if any, are going toward our balance. Does anyone know if this is not the case?

 

[controller1]

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).

Since the Hyatt resort offers only valet parking the comparison is apples to oranges. All three Westin Maui resorts offer both valet and self parking options. Yes, self parking is complimentary but valet is charged $35/night even for owners with the exception of being complimentary for the night of check-in.

 

[socaltimeshare]

Since I rarely see inventory available on Hyatt.com, I assume that this 17-20% of developer inventory has been rented out, and (if we the owners have paid the maintenance fees) that the profits, if any, are going toward our balance. Does anyone know if this is not the case?

Developer inventory can be used for whatever they want to use it for- selling on Hyatt.com, selling on other channels (Expedia, etc), inventory for discounted marketing stays like the Access package, etc.

Developer keeps these profits. I believe the developer pays a guaranty which is less on a per unit basis relative to the per unit equivalent MFs (which are based on unit square footage).

 

[dagger1]

1. It reduces the rental value.
2. It reduces the resale value.
3. It makes the gift of a week to a friend or relative less of a gift.

Other than that, no impact.

1. Does it?
2. Again, does it?
3. From their perspective, yes…. From the owners…?

 

[dagger1]

These fees are a component of the maintenance fees so the owner has already paid. The new charges will be paid upon check out by the occupant. There are also other fees that are paid upon check out by all occupants.

Yes…. Owners and authorized users get these “prepaid” benefits. Non owners apparently have to pay for their use of these owners’ paid benefits.

 

[wendyleighj]

The bottom line of whose financial statement?

Does anyone know for a fact whether this revenue will belong to the HOA or to the management company? We have seen other instances of parking and valet charges going to the management company, not the owners.

FACT: Revenue goes directly to the ASSOCIATION.