IMHO OLCC Better Than Sheraton Vistana

[timeos2]

One of the problems on this board with responses is that there is an assumption that what each individual likes, then others should like it as well. For example, the comment that being able to walk to dining facilities is seen as a big plus. Actually one of the reasons I like OLCC is because it is not cramped into a small space. I own at Vacation Village at Parkway which when all is said and done will have almost as many units as OLCC currently has without the amenities but all 20 buildings are in a small property. .

What you state is certainly true. We have found we don't prefer any of the mega-resorts because they are so large and everything is too far to get to although often beautiful. Worse is the extremely variable units you tend to find in those resorts as shown by responses right here in this thread. Too big to handle on a consistant basis.

On the other hand your example of Parkway is the opposite extreme. Crammed into a bad location, yet spread out over a long road virtually no resort feel and not really convenient to anything it combines the worst of a mega and a more compact resort - not to it's benefit. Yet the units there, at least the ones I've stayed at, were nice and I had no complaints about that. Just not what I would consider to be a top "resort" more of a nice apartment to spend some time.

Everyone is going to have things they like or dislike about almost any resort. Thats why they most, except my sewer pit called Wastegate,l seem to thrive I guess.

 

[borntotravel]

You are both absolutely right about peoples opinions, and it certainly does make a difference as to whether you get a refurbished unit or one that is due soon (I've had both). And I must admit, the reason I won't go back to Vistana Resort or Liki Tiki is because at both of these the units were old, nasty carpets, and broken and worn out furniture. If I had had a nice unit, I wouldn't have had anything negative to say about Vistana. The grounds are nicely kept and the resort is very appealing to the eye.

I have exchanged into Westgate Lakes three times, twice in an efficiency and once into a two bedroom. I have always been very happy with that resort and the units have been very nice (and I'm pretty picky anda bit of a time share snob). The only problem I see there is the parking situation. But....I hear tons of negative things on TUG about this resort and it's not just the owners airing their concerns about Westgate as a whole, but people that have exchanged into there. Personally, I would put that as one of my "preferred" resorts.

Go figure!! Just goes to show you that people's opinions are pretty subjective.

 

[bward]

More Vistana ReFurb

There is a new Tug thread here on the Florida board that the much maligned Vistana Resort Courts section is getting refurbed.

But judging from the amount of the special assessment ($1700) wouldn't it be better to call it a rehab? That's a lot more than owners of the other sections have paid, and I'm wondering if the Courts rehab is going to be more extensive.

The upside, of course, is that all of Vistana Resort will be a much better time share destination. And much more desirable.

With Courts getting refurbed, anyone know which sections, if any, have yet to take the plunge?

bward

 

[rickandcindy23]

I liked Westgate Lakes as well, but we had a huge problem with parking. We were literally parking anywhere we could find, sometimes great distances to the units.

Vistana is going to be fabulous when it's done. And the photos of OLCC Golf Villas looked really great, too. For some of the areas, it seems that updates were long overdue at both mega resorts.

 

[Mel]

The reason OLCC didn't have an assessment is that we have paid into a reserve fund all along - it has been budgeted from the beginning. When we purchase, back in 1991, there was a 24 year refurbishment cycle - with different items being assigned a life of 8,16 or 24 years. At 24 years, the plan was to rehab down to the drywall. This is what has been seen with the West Village Golf Villas. Several years ago, I recall the refurb cycle was changed - the 24 total years remained the same, but items like furniture was given a shorter life span (I think we went from a 8/16/24 year cycle to a 6/12/18/24 cycle). Obviously, we had learned that the expected lifespan of some items was shorter than anticipated .

With Vistana doing a similar rehab in a similar timeframe, it looks like they didn't plan appropriate reserves - the other thing I recall is a florida law passed regarding reserves. I don't recall the details, but certain reserves would be mandatory, and had to be budgeted, but a full rehab might not have been among those things required.

There are also other factors coming into play - not just the cost, but of when to schedule the refurbs, and how long they take. Each unit is scheduled to be out of service just one or two weeks a year (1 year at OLCC). If it will take 6 weeks to refurb a unit, that means the entire section of the resort must be done over 6 years - and that doesn't allow for any units to be unavailable due to emergency situations. That means that every unit not being refurbed must be available for occupancy! If it takes 8 week, that means and 8-year cycle for the whole section.

Then factor in costs - we paid for our refurb over the 240 plan, a few dollars extra each year. Vistana owners may have had lower fees over those years (though I don't think they actually did), but got stuck with a big bill. As for the DVD players and internet, those are decisions made by the owner-controlled HOA. Internet access is not truly a necessary utility yet, so shouldn't be part of maintenance fees. DVD players are likely to replace VCRs over time, but even the need for those is diminishing, as many families travel with personal DVD players.

It is true that the needs of each traveler is different, and thus the factors that will make a break an exchange experience. But each time you think of what you wish a given resort had, maybe also consider what it does have than some (or many) other resorts don't have, and that maybe the owners chose that feature over the one you would have chosen. All those amenities and features everyone wants at these resorts cost money, and it is the owners that pay for them. One of the mantras here is to buy at a resort with relatively low maintenance fees, but if we all vote to keep our own fees down, shouldn't we expect other owners to do the same? Parhaps the owners at OLCC have not pushed for internet resort-wide because #1 we would be the ones paying for both the infrastructure and the ongoing costs, and #2 because we go to OLCC to get away from home and work - for a VACATION :whoopie: - and we don't need to be plugged in 24 hours a day. The reality is we spend most of our time at the parks and in the pools.

 

[rickandcindy23]

We have added free high-speed, wireless internet to Twin Rivers (in Fraser CO, icebox of the lower 48) because we wanted to make sure that exchangers noticed those things because frankly, Twin Rivers doesn't offer many amenities. A bump in II and RCI scores for electronics is the least we could do..

I think it's an important thing to offer, especially when so many people bring laptops on vacation. I will still post sightings when we are at Disney's Boardwalk Villas in September (we will pay $9.95 per day for that privilege, so I better take advantage of it).

 

[timetraveler]

whew!!!! Thanks Mel. My wrists and fingers thank you!!!!

I'm sure your fingers are sore after that detailed post. Great explanation!

 

[Sea Six]

I hope you don't really believe that any annual assessments accounted for not only the replacement costs of refurbishments, but for the upgrades in materials and technology that would be expected. If your unit has laminated formica countertops and cabinets, don't believe your annual reserve over all these years was based on upgrading to solid granite or Corian countertops and solid woods. Your TVs were never funded to be replaced with an HDTV flat screen, LCD OR plasma. There was no plan for free WIFI when there was no such thing when the unit was built. We have new expectations in high end units, and if that is what you want, there will be an assessment on top of your annual fees to make that happen. If you've owned a unit for many years and these new things appear at no additional charge to you, then you HAVE been paying too much for your maintenance fees over the years, or there is a funding issue. The fees you pay are based on replacement costs over expected lifetimes, not upgrades to the ultimate in technology when the need arrises.

 

[timetraveler]

OL's maintenance fees are among the lowest of any Orlando timeshare, Sea Six. Always have been. So, no we have not been paying too much in fees over the years. And I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "funding issue".

 

[borntotravel]

We have never gotten a special assessment since we have owned. I had inquired about this prior to purchasing our resale, and they told me it is built into the maintenance fees and they NEVER issue assessments for it. Actually, it makes sense. If you plan accordingly (which they obviously did), all the money that goes into that fund is earning interest. There should be lots of it in the fund since each unit is not refurbished each year. Obviously this is one timeshare that didn't just build a timeshare, but actually built a timeshare resort and planned for the future.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Just got back and stayed in a newly remodeled/refurb'd Fountains I villa :

 

[rickandcindy23]

Wow! That is some great refurbishment at Vistana! Love the dark wood (cannot believe I am saying that). It looks very rich in there. How are the bathtubs? Do they still have a nice whirlpool?

Did you ask for a refurbished unit, or did they just assign it to you?

 

[gjw007]

Maria,

I like the looks at the Fountains but I liked it when I was there 5 years ago.

SeaSix,

You have a point as technology changes but let's take you up on using granite rather than formica counter tops and flat screen versus CRTs. After remodeling my house which is over 1450 sq ft, the cost of these is less than $10,000, so I'll use $10,000. Just to provide options, let's say they were to paid immediately, the HOA decided 5 years before the renovations were to be done to do the upgrades, and the decision was made 10 years out rather than 5 year.


Time: Owners pay immediately,
Cost: $10,000
Number of units: 50 (2 weeks are kept by developer)
Cost per week: $10,000 / 50 = $200 on the maintenance bill

Time: Owner pay over 5 years
Cost: $10,000
Number of units: 50 * 5 = 250
Cost per year: $40 added to maintenance bill

Time: Owner pays over 10 years
Cost: $10,000
Number of Units: 50 * 10 = 500
Cost per year: $20 per year

As seen, if the HOA does its planning and puts money into the reserves, it doesn't have to break the owners bank in addition to the replacement maintenance fees if there is a decision to upgrade certain areas. What some may see as upgrades may actually have been planned. The difference is how Vistana and OLCC handled this should provide some light on the importance of planning.

As far as Internet access, there are two schools of thought out there. The one you proposed where the owner fork out the cost of Internet so that it is free and available to all. This is true even if the owner doesn't use it. The second option is that it is an option that only those who use it should pay for it. OLCC has implemented this version. DVC as an example has also done this until recently when owners staying on points no longer have to pay for Internet access. Neither method is right or wrong as it is ultimately a choice the owners have to make and if they are happy with the decision, then it is the right way to go.

It's hard for me to see a justification for some of the special assessment. I was looking at Fairfield property in Williamsburg but they had 3 years of special assessments to cover the renovation costs. Cypress Pointe had its special assessment as well as several others. I can't help but see these as red flags where the management hasn't done its job.

 

[borntotravel]

The refurbished units at The Fountains do look very nice!

 

[timeos2]

Any resort can have an SA - why & what they do about it makes the difference

It's hard for me to see a justification for some of the special assessment. I was looking at Fairfield property in Williamsburg but they had 3 years of special assessments to cover the renovation costs. Cypress Pointe had its special assessment as well as several others. I can't help but see these as red flags where the management hasn't done its job.

That is correct - many (in fact I'd hazard a guess that it's actually most) resorts do have a SA at some point. The key is why and what was done to ensure that was really a emergency and not just bad planning and/or a one time catch up collection to right the ship. If the Association followed up with basic changes such as realistic fees for reserves going forward or a change in management (or both) then the underlying problem will hopefully be solved and the future needs will be funded properly. I worry if the SAME group - management and/or Board - that let it occur the first time is still in place when the SA goes out. Did they really learn a lesson or are they SA junkies?
A legitimate SA can happen and can be excused. A pattern of living off them is a very big red flag.

 

[Mel]

I hope you don't really believe that any annual assessments accounted for not only the replacement costs of refurbishments, but for the upgrades in materials and technology that would be expected. If your unit has laminated formica countertops and cabinets, don't believe your annual reserve over all these years was based on upgrading to solid granite or Corian countertops and solid woods. Your TVs were never funded to be replaced with an HDTV flat screen, LCD OR plasma. There was no plan for free WIFI when there was no such thing when the unit was built. We have new expectations in high end units, and if that is what you want, there will be an assessment on top of your annual fees to make that happen. If you've owned a unit for many years and these new things appear at no additional charge to you, then you HAVE been paying too much for your maintenance fees over the years, or there is a funding issue. The fees you pay are based on replacement costs over expected lifetimes, not upgrades to the ultimate in technology when the need arrises.

The cost of upgrades is not that major, when replacement has already been planned. As already explained, if the decision to go with solid granite was made 5 years before the actual refurb, the amount going into reserve could spread over those 5 years - or even longer if the refurb is spread over several years. You wouldn't need full funding until just before the final phase. Given that those countertops were planned to be replaced, you're only talking about the upgrade cost. Even if that were $5100 per unit (highly unlikely), that comes to $100 per unit (we have 51 week occupancy). Spread over 10 years that comes to $10 increase in annual fees per year. For the televisions, the same applies - the have to be replaced, so you already have the money for a smaller set, and just have to pay an upgrade fee. Then there's the question of which upgrades you make. Do you need to go with solid granite? In a regular home, you might want to go with such an upgrade because you will be using it every day. But I doubt a granite countertop is going to make a significant difference in the trade power, and if I use my unit, I have to ask the question of whether the price difference is worth it for 1 week a year.

As for internet, if we install the infrastructure it needs to be done for ALL units, with the assumption that peak access needs will allow for ALL units (and maybe even 2 computers per unit) to be able to access at the same time. That means significant bandwidth. If we have enough bandwidth for 10% of the units to access at once, how happy will exchangers be when everything slows down because 30% are trying to access at the same time? I realize there is an economy of size, if we try to provide access for everyone, but how much will it really cost? Should all owners, some of whom won't use the access, pay $5 extra per week - plus the installation costs?

What about charging a weekly fee? Well, you still need the capacity for ALL the units. So the resort pays up front for all units to have access, and is reimbursed by guests who subscribe. But what rate do you charge, and what percentage of guests do you expect to subscribe? if 20% subscribe, that $5 per week just jumped to $25 per subscribed user. But will 20% really pay that, if they don't really need it for the week? So maybe we're talking 10%, and then the cost jumps to $50 for the week... see where I'm going?