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

[wendyleighj]

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.

 

[wendyleighj]

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).

There are 4 owner representatives on the 2 boards at HKB.

 

[wendyleighj]

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.

Totally false. Hyatt developer didn't end any subsidy. The developer pays the same proportional share as the owners for the unsold weeks. The increase was 100% related to increased costs as outlined in the budget.

 

[jstim54]

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 won’t control future MF increases. It can’t unless you expect the resort and parking fees to increase every year at a same rate or greater than MF and the number of guests certificates to remain constant or increase, which it won’t. The revenue generated may provide a small (maybe $30) one time offset, but after the first year revenue will not increase as the number of guest certificates is not likely to increase from year to year. The revenue this policy generates will likely go down from year to year as fewer owners will share their weeks with friends and family nor rent to recapture MF as it becomes harder and harder to break even.

 

[jstim54]

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.

The board can’t act against the best interests of the association members. If you can show that the claims of reduced MF are not founded, that they reduced owner value, or reduced their rights as deed holders, you would have a case.

 

[TolmiePeak]

The board can’t act against the best interests of the association members. If you can show that the claims of reduced MF are not founded, that they reduced owner value, or reduced their rights as deed holders, you would have a case.

Everyone understands that lawsuits will increase maintenance fees.

 

[Kal]

It won’t control future MF increases. It can’t unless you expect the resort and parking fees to increase every year at a same rate or greater than MF and the number of guests certificates to remain constant or increase, which it won’t. The revenue generated may provide a small (maybe $30) one time offset, but after the first year revenue will not increase as the number of guest certificates is not likely to increase from year to year. The revenue this policy generates will likely go down from year to year as fewer owners will share their weeks with friends and family nor rent to recapture MF as it becomes harder and harder to break even.

These additional fees will HELP the bottom line. There is no indication of any major impact.

 

[pedro47]

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.

So in the future these resorts will have smaller increase in their yearly MF.

 

[jstim54]

So in the future these resorts will have smaller increase in their yearly MF.

Maybe once, then the MF will continue to grow at the same rate. The same way that raising taxes doesn’t slow government spending.

 

[jstim54]

These additional fees will HELP the bottom line. There is no indication of any major impact.

What do you mean by no major impact? There is evidence that it will negatively impact a significant number of owners and no evidence it will have “no major impact.”

 

[jstim54]

Everyone understands that lawsuits will increase maintenance fees.

It may, or the board will realize it’s not worth the fight and drop the fees without incurring significant legal costs.

 

[dioxide45]

So in the future these resorts will have smaller increase in their yearly MF.

The smaller increase is a one year thing. It will only not increase the first year they institute the fees. At that point owners will see a revenue line item on their bill for the new fee revenue. That really won't go up because the same number of people staying as guests of an owner really won't go up to increase that fee revenue. Perhaps the parking fee will go up but that will only slightly offset other increases in fees.

 

[vacationtime1]

The smaller increase is a one year thing. It will only not increase the first year they institute the fees. At that point owners will see a revenue line item on their bill for the new fee revenue. That really won't go up because the same number of people staying as guests of an owner really won't go up to increase that fee revenue. Perhaps the parking fee will go up but that will only slightly offset other increases in fees.

So there will be a savings of perhaps $25-$50/year in MF's (based on post #64 above). So if someone owns for ten years, the owner will save a total of $250-$500.

Compare that to the loss of ~$600 rental income that will result if the owner rents only once during those ten years (see post #9 above) and the reduced value of the VOI when the owner sells.

I don't see the long term benefit to the owners here.

 

[TolmiePeak]

It may, or the board will realize it’s not worth the fight and drop the fees without incurring significant legal costs.

Why should it though. Why should parking ever be free? It is a subsidy that people who don't bring cars shouldn't pay for. I don't like subsidizing others and giving them free stuff.

 

[vacationtime1]

Why should it though. Why should parking ever be free? It is a subsidy that people who don't bring cars shouldn't pay for. I don't like subsidizing others and giving them free stuff.

That's an entirely different issue* -- and a red herring to this discussion.

If people who don't drive shouldn't subsidize those who do, then ALL parking should be paid as an add-on -- regardless of whether they are owners, renters, or exchangers.

* A valid issue, just not the issue being discussed here.

 

[dioxide45]

Why should it though. Why should parking ever be free? It is a subsidy that people who don't bring cars shouldn't pay for. I don't like subsidizing others and giving them free stuff.

There are a lot of onsite amenities where this could apply. What about the people that don't use the gym. Should there just be a fee to use the gym? Then you have activities. What about the pool? Some people never use the pool but their fees go to maintaining the pool.

 

[Kal]

What do you mean by no major impact? There is evidence that it will negatively impact a significant number of owners and no evidence it will have “no major impact.”

I am referring to impact to the maintenance fees. If there are a "significant" number of owners who rent their unit(s) then the impact to the MF will be a bit better. I am not considering any impact to those owners who rent. The nature of a rental business should often see changes which impact the bottom line. A smart business person should protect the business from unanticipated events.

And yes, I too have observed the huckster pitch on using rental proceeds to cover MFs. I don't give much credit to what the huckster pitches. Their starting point is the Hotel next door charges at least $800 plus "fees" for one night stay. So for a 7 night rental at HKB that will easily generate a nice profit over MF. Their end game is for the mark to purchase more than one unit (at developer pricing). I have sat thru that pitch at least 4 times and never do they go into how to manage such as financial transaction. It's just, "how many units will you buy"?

Also, it would appear the mark sees purchasing time shares as an investment. If so, I have a lovely bridge to sell that person.

 

[dioxide45]

Their starting point is the Hotel next door charges at least $800 plus "fees" for one night stay. So for a 7 night rental at HKB that will easily generate a nice profit over MF.

I am not sure that is the case. Of course the $800 next door is only a hotel room. Seven nights works out to $5600 plus fees. Owners are paying close to $4200/week in MF. A private rental with a no cancellation policy is never going to rent close to what the big hotel brands rent their nights for. It seems that most rentals listed on Redweek are listed at what the owners are paying in fees because it is actually other HVC owners booking with points that is undercutting owners at HKB.

 

[jstim54]

Why should it though. Why should parking ever be free? It is a subsidy that people who don't bring cars shouldn't pay for. I don't like subsidizing others and giving them free stuff.

That’s fair. I just want any fees to be applied uniformly to all owners and owners’ guests.

 

[dagger1]

So there will be a savings of perhaps $25-$50/year in MF's (based on post #64 above). So if someone owns for ten years, the owner will save a total of $250-$500.

Compare that to the loss of ~$600 rental income that will result if the owner rents only once during those ten years (see post #9 above) and the reduced value of the VOI when the owner sells.

I don't see the long term benefit to the owners here.

If I rent, I will not be reducing my rental price. People will pay a little more per day, or rent elsewhere. There is no evidence that rental income will drop.

 

[jstim54]

I am referring to impact to the maintenance fees. If there are a "significant" number of owners who rent their unit(s) then the impact to the MF will be a bit better. I am not considering any impact to those owners who rent. The nature of a rental business should often see changes which impact the bottom line. A smart business person should protect the business from unanticipated events.

And yes, I too have observed the huckster pitch on using rental proceeds to cover MFs. I don't give much credit to what the huckster pitches. Their starting point is the Hotel next door charges at least $800 plus "fees" for one night stay. So for a 7 night rental at HKB that will easily generate a nice profit over MF. Their end game is for the mark to purchase more than one unit (at developer pricing). I have sat thru that pitch at least 4 times and never do they go into how to manage such as financial transaction. It's just, "how many units will you buy"?

Also, it would appear the mark sees purchasing time shares as an investment. If so, I have a lovely bridge to sell that person.

I would love to go to Hawaii every year, but some years it doesn’t work out. Renting isn’t about making a profit. Maybe some people do, but I personally just want to be able to recover as much of my MF as I can in a year I can’t go to HKB.

 

[jstim54]

If I rent, I will not be reducing my rental price. People will pay a little more per day, or rent elsewhere. There is no evidence that rental income will drop.

There’s no evidence it won’t. Logically the market rental price will adjust to compensate for additional fees if they are disclosed at the time of rental. I’ve rented my week a few times and every time I get asked about additional fees and often they will ask to rent off the listing site to avoid the rental fees Redweek charges. If additional fees are charged, it will get priced in and the average rental price will have to drop to compensate.

 

[dagger1]

There’s no evidence it won’t. Logically the market rental price will adjust to compensate for additional fees if they are disclosed at the time of rental. I’ve rented my week a few times and every time I get asked about additional fees and often they will ask to rent off the listing site to avoid the rental fees Redweek charges. If additional fees are charged, it will get priced in and the average rental price will have to drop to compensate.

Yes, agree. There is no evidence that these extra minor fees will affect rental prices. Maybe. Maybe not. Non owners pay a little more…

 

[ivywag]

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.

Actually, if you go back to the documents for the original Hyatt Vacation Club (weeks), there is a rule stating that owners can only rent their owned week and unit. Therefore, any other rentals are prohibited including CUP reservations and any that are booked with Portfolio points. This really only affects owners who opt to rent their own unit.

 

[dioxide45]

Actually, if you go back to the documents for the original Hyatt Vacation Club (weeks), there is a rule stating that owners can only rent their owned week and unit. Therefore, any other rentals are prohibited including CUP reservations and any that are booked with Portfolio points. This really only affects owners who opt to rent their own unit.

What the rules are and what actually happens are two very different things.