Letter from Polynesian Isles Re: DRI

[happytraveler1]

I own at Polynesian Isles and have attended meetings there. Let it be known that Linda Riddle is a paralegal EMPLOYED by Diamond Resorts. Thank You

 

[lv_maui]

I just had the first opportunity a few minutes ago to set down and read the recent posting. Let me assurance you and the other owners the Board is did it best to protect the interest of all the home owners.
It would tak too long to discuss the problem there are with Diamond, but trust me when I tell you a chhange is necessary.
I am delight to hear that a lots of people have put their trust in us as the board and hopeful after April 7th we can get on with the business of help to secure the resort for the owners.
Poly 4 has already made all the necessary moves and it would be good if we can also get everything changed over.
If at all possibly it might be good if you can listen in on the meeting from Florida on the 7th of April, everything is not as Diamond has so skillfully presented it. They are a large company with hundreds of employees, but even that doesn't assure the owner of the best possibly management.
Let's just keep work together, we have been owner ever since the orginial buildings were in construction.
We have seen bad time and good time, but we want more good times.
Eddie Lofton
Vice President"

Once again, a posting with no specifics about what is going on although I had some trouble following what Mr. Lofton was saying.

 

[tatvan]

I see no indication from that post that the person is implying he is with DRI. He is just copying a letter/email that DRI sent out. I really am not sure how you could interpret the posting that way, Thelma. Maybe you shoudl re-read the post!!

The post from John did not indicate he does not have a relationship with DRI. He posted a document with signature from DRI and does not attach or state a disclaimer stating he is not employed by them nor on their board ....therefore leaves him open to my statement.

 

[tatvan]

In Agreement

This entire discussion topic would have had more clarity & would have been easier to follow if more of the participants had made clear who they are, whom they represent, & where they're coming from, etc., at the outset.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

I agree...amen!!

 

[tatvan]

Hi, Thelma...All I got was a "private message" through my TUG BBS account, and nothing that came in my email from the VP. So, no return email, and he included no phone number...Here it is copied/pasted below:
(I sincerely hope that I am not breaching any TUG protocol by posting this publicly; I just really want to help in getting to the bottom of this crazy mess)



"Board of Director working Hard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had the first opportunity a few minutes ago to set down and read the recent posting. Let me assurance you and the other owners the Board is did it best to protect the interest of all the home owners.
It would tak too long to discuss the problem there are with Diamond, but trust me when I tell you a chhange is necessary.
I am delight to hear that a lots of people have put their trust in us as the board and hopeful after April 7th we can get on with the business of help to secure the resort for the owners.
Poly 4 has already made all the necessary moves and it would be good if we can also get everything changed over.
If at all possibly it might be good if you can listen in on the meeting from Florida on the 7th of April, everything is not as Diamond has so skillfully presented it. They are a large company with hundreds of employees, but even that doesn't assure the owner of the best possibly management.
Let's just keep work together, we have been owner ever since the orginial buildings were in construction.
We have seen bad time and good time, but we want more good times.
Eddie Lofton
Vice President"

I agree with the person who said its hard to follow what Eddie is saying. So now today is Friday they meet on Tuesday and I have not heard either side say they are making conferencing an option for the owners to participate. Seems like both sides have something going on owners we would not appreciate. Time will tell.
Thelma

 

[tatvan]

As per Alan...

I am an owner of a week at Poly in no way affilited with Diamond or a member of the HOA Board.

I was simply posting the latest email from Diamond to keep those who do not own at Poly, but have been following as these events unfold (then fold themselves up again, change color and texture and unfold again) to follow along. I mentioned that Diamond seemed desperate with the wording of the last letter, bringing the winning by 11 votes in and I simply asked wondered how many total votes... 11 votes could be 1% or 99% of the total votes...

-John

Prior to what you posted, the lastest email I see on these posting is on the 23rd of March stating who he is and where he's from....Shawn Ericson, DRI Management.
What you posted has no indication it did not come from DRI ... so now your saying your not with DRI .... confusing !!!!
I only know what I'm reading and I look to see if someone signs what they wrote.... I read what was written and signed.... there was nothing to tell me otherwise.
If you don't want to be confusing you may want to write a disclaimer... just a thought....
Thelma

 

[tatvan]

My Mistake

Prior to what you posted, the lastest email I see on these posting is on the 23rd of March stating who he is and where he's from....Shawn Ericson, DRI Management.
What you posted has no indication it did not come from DRI ... so now your saying your not with DRI .... confusing !!!!
I only know what I'm reading and I look to see if someone signs what they wrote.... I read what was written and signed.... there was nothing to tell me otherwise.
If you don't want to be confusing you may want to write a disclaimer... just a thought....
Thelma

John,
Prior to what you posted , the lastest post was not on March 23 but on March 31 ... my mistake.
Thelma

 

[Chanook729]

It's all just confusing...

No worries... I thought that using the different font for my comments would have seperated the two.

There are two sides to this story and most likely somewhere in the middle is the truth. We will ever have it? Who knows.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

No worries... I thought that using the different font for my comments would have seperated the two.

There are two sides to this story and most likely somewhere in the middle is the truth. We will ever have it? Who knows.

With all due respect, in a matter such as this there is only one set of facts. Owners should demand from the board a copy of the proposed new contract as well as all official correspondence from DRI to the board concerning the lawsuit and statements regarding managment fee freezes and collections. This should all be on file with the board.

 

[DianeNYS]

Newest email from Poly I HOA that I've received

MEMO TO OWNERS

FROM: CARLOS COSTA, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

DATE: April 3, 2009

TO: OWNERS OF POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

RE: DIAMOND RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC.

Dear Owners:
We have received some inquiries as to why the Board of Directors (“BOD”) of Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc. (“Poly I”) wants to terminate the Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. (“DRM”). The BOD has worked with DRM, but over the last four (4) years has not been happy with its services. The BOD has voiced its concerns, and DRM has failed to remedy the problems

Although DRM claims assessments will rise under SPM Resorts, Inc. (“SPM”), that could not be further than the truth. In fact, SPM will hold DRM responsible for its assessments. The truth is that DRM does not pay its assessments on time, and as of this date, has not paid its 2008 or 2009 assessments. This has been DRM’s pattern over the last few years. It fails to pay until the audit is complete, and then it doesn’t pay late fees or interest even though every other owner is charged these fees.

Further, the Interval Recovery Agreement, to which a recent communication to you from DRM referred, only benefits DRM, since DRM ultimately forecloses on the week in question in which delinquent assessments are due and then resells or rents it for more for its own financial gain. Hence, there is not an incentive for DRM to actually collect from delinquent owners. Poly I, however, does have such an incentive and can recover those weeks in which delinquent assessments are due by either actually collecting those delinquent assessments or selling the week in question, thus reducing bad debt and benefiting both Poly I and its Owners.

DRM wants you to believe that the fees charged by SPM will be greater than DRM’s, however, the fee paid to SPM will be a percentage of what it collects. There are no hidden fees or additional fees like DRM charges the owners. The BOD has spent endless hours researching new management companies, and it was not until the BOD decided to vote to terminate DRM that DRM decided not to raise its management fee. Even with DRM’s not raising its fee, SPM will still be cheaper for the owners with a better quality of service. We have spoken to several board members from properties managed by SPM, and they have all said the quality of service increased, while maintenance fees decreased because SPM is not a developer, but rather manages in the best interest of the owners.
If you have any questions or concerns, and before you believe one-sided information from DRM, I urge you to contact me directly as the President of the Board of Directors of Poly I and give me the opportunity to clarify any potentially misleading information, which could possibly lead you to act against your own best interest as an Owner of Poly I. Otherwise, please fax your proxy today to 407-849-1119 and appoint me as your proxy holder. It is time to take back our resort. You can also contact me directly at ccosta@myway.com

Sincerely,

Carlos Costa, President
Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc.

*****************************************************************

This is very coherent and, though not number specific, does make some sense and calms my fears somewhat...I appreciate Carlos' communication here and sincerely hope what's best for us as Owners and Polynesian Isles as a Resort comes to pass. Beyond that, I'm not sure...I, too, would like to be able to listen in on a conference call to Tuesday's meeting. I'm still pretty confused, and wish I knew who had the highest moral ground here--DRI management or the Poly I Board of Directors/HOA. Diane

 

[tatvan]

Let's send Carlos an email

MEMO TO OWNERS

FROM: CARLOS COSTA, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

DATE: April 3, 2009

TO: OWNERS OF POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

RE: DIAMOND RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC.

Dear Owners:
We have received some inquiries as to why the Board of Directors (“BOD”) of Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc. (“Poly I”) wants to terminate the Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. (“DRM”). The BOD has worked with DRM, but over the last four (4) years has not been happy with its services. The BOD has voiced its concerns, and DRM has failed to remedy the problems

Although DRM claims assessments will rise under SPM Resorts, Inc. (“SPM”), that could not be further than the truth. In fact, SPM will hold DRM responsible for its assessments. The truth is that DRM does not pay its assessments on time, and as of this date, has not paid its 2008 or 2009 assessments. This has been DRM’s pattern over the last few years. It fails to pay until the audit is complete, and then it doesn’t pay late fees or interest even though every other owner is charged these fees.

Further, the Interval Recovery Agreement, to which a recent communication to you from DRM referred, only benefits DRM, since DRM ultimately forecloses on the week in question in which delinquent assessments are due and then resells or rents it for more for its own financial gain. Hence, there is not an incentive for DRM to actually collect from delinquent owners. Poly I, however, does have such an incentive and can recover those weeks in which delinquent assessments are due by either actually collecting those delinquent assessments or selling the week in question, thus reducing bad debt and benefiting both Poly I and its Owners.

DRM wants you to believe that the fees charged by SPM will be greater than DRM’s, however, the fee paid to SPM will be a percentage of what it collects. There are no hidden fees or additional fees like DRM charges the owners. The BOD has spent endless hours researching new management companies, and it was not until the BOD decided to vote to terminate DRM that DRM decided not to raise its management fee. Even with DRM’s not raising its fee, SPM will still be cheaper for the owners with a better quality of service. We have spoken to several board members from properties managed by SPM, and they have all said the quality of service increased, while maintenance fees decreased because SPM is not a developer, but rather manages in the best interest of the owners.
If you have any questions or concerns, and before you believe one-sided information from DRM, I urge you to contact me directly as the President of the Board of Directors of Poly I and give me the opportunity to clarify any potentially misleading information, which could possibly lead you to act against your own best interest as an Owner of Poly I. Otherwise, please fax your proxy today to 407-849-1119 and appoint me as your proxy holder. It is time to take back our resort. You can also contact me directly at ccosta@myway.com

Sincerely,

Carlos Costa, President
Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc.

*****************************************************************

This is very coherent and, though not number specific, does make some sense and calms my fears somewhat...I appreciate Carlos' communication here and sincerely hope what's best for us as Owners and Polynesian Isles as a Resort comes to pass. Beyond that, I'm not sure...I, too, would like to be able to listen in on a conference call to Tuesday's meeting. I'm still pretty confused, and wish I knew who had the highest moral ground here--DRI management or the Poly I Board of Directors/HOA. Diane

Hi Diane,

As owners we ought to send Carlos the email asking him to make a video conference or conference call available for us on Tuesday. Lets tell him that would be a good use of our money. I will send an email to him right now. I would just call him but he is most likely in Florida setting up for the meeting.
I did not receive this email. PI does not have any email addresses for me.
Thanks for sending your email.

Thelma

 

[tatvan]

Meeting is on Tuesday

With all due respect, in a matter such as this there is only one set of facts. Owners should demand from the board a copy of the proposed new contract as well as all official correspondence from DRI to the board concerning the lawsuit and statements regarding managment fee freezes and collections. This should all be on file with the board.

But with the meeting on Tuesday I don't think we'll be given the lawsuit information and official correspondance from DRI at this late date.
Now if they do terminate DRI then we do have time to look over important documents before a new management is in place. DRI contract ends in June. We can ask for the information you suggest before contracting with a new management company. SPM may not end up with the contract after DRI. What you suggest owners demand in regard to the new contract proposal does not seem unreasonable. We may need to consider two or three other management company before owners make the final decision.... I do think this ought to be an owners decision.
Thelma

 

[tatvan]

No worries... I thought that using the different font for my comments would have seperated the two.

There are two sides to this story and most likely somewhere in the middle is the truth. We will ever have it? Who knows.

That's fine.
Yes, always two sides to a story.
And this just seems to be a wake up call to owners. We really need to be more involved with what goes on with the HOA when we are trusting them to work on our behalf.
This should never have gone this far without us knowing and its our own fault.. owners should have been more on top of our investment.(speaking for myself , of course... others may be doing as they ought)

Thelma

 

[DianeNYS]

You're right, Thelma

Hi Diane,

As owners we ought to send Carlos the email asking him to make a video conference or conference call available for us on Tuesday. Lets tell him that would be a good use of our money. I will send an email to him right now. I would just call him but he is most likely in Florida setting up for the meeting.
I did not receive this email. PI does not have any email addresses for me.
Thanks for sending your email.

Thelma

And I WILL email him with that request; I should've thought of that myself This whole thing with changing management companies is new for me; I don't ever remember this kind of thing happening with any of my timeshares (I own 5, and bought my first--OLCC--in 1990!)...either I've been VERY lucky in the past, or the (possible) controversies just flew right over my head in the past! I truly appreciate your keeping up with this thread and all of my questions and concerns; it at least lets me know that I'm not alone out there in the wilderness! Thanks, again...

 

[pgnewarkboy]

But with the meeting on Tuesday I don't think we'll be given the lawsuit information and official correspondance from DRI at this late date.
Now if they do terminate DRI then we do have time to look over important documents before a new management is in place. DRI contract ends in June. We can ask for the information you suggest before contracting with a new management company. SPM may not end up with the contract after DRI. What you suggest owners demand in regard to the new contract proposal does not seem unreasonable. We may need to consider two or three other management company before owners make the final decision.... I do think this ought to be an owners decision.
Thelma

The Board should have the DRI letter or letters stating their intention on maintenance fees and collections. The board should be able to scan these documents and make them an e-mail attachment to be sent to all owners. Its done every day in the usual course of business.

 

[happytraveler1]

happytraveler1

Just heard that many people do not realize that Board Members do not live in Fla. One lives in Wisc., some in Mass., some in Mich., and Canada. Try to attend your resort meetings when in Fla. Your HOA Board of Directors are just like you, average people.

Thanks

 

[tatvan]

And I WILL email him with that request; I should've thought of that myself This whole thing with changing management companies is new for me; I don't ever remember this kind of thing happening with any of my timeshares (I own 5, and bought my first--OLCC--in 1990!)...either I've been VERY lucky in the past, or the (possible) controversies just flew right over my head in the past! I truly appreciate your keeping up with this thread and all of my questions and concerns; it at least lets me know that I'm not alone out there in the wilderness! Thanks, again...

I hope others will make the request also. If we are not conferenced in that's fine we still have time for input on other management if DRI is terminated on June 3.
Thelma

 

[tatvan]

The Board should have the DRI letter or letters stating their intention on maintenance fees and collections. The board should be able to scan these documents and make them an e-mail attachment to be sent to all owners. Its done every day in the usual course of business.

You are saying these documents should be available to owners sometime in the future... correct? I don't think you are saying they should have them for us by Monday/Tuesday?
Yea, whoever is being considered for management I will be asking for these documents. The Board has the information so they need to be more transparent with the owners. Your right, its the usual course of business.

Thanks
Thelma

 

[tatvan]

Board Pres Requested I post

I received an email from Carlos Costa. He is doing 10,000 things right now preparing for Tuesday and other matters so asked if I would post the letter below onto TUG. I have not read it so now after I post I will read it. All I do know is that its from an owner who is an attorney and supports what the Board is doing ..... so here its is....

____

Carlos, you have my full support and may use this letter in any way that helps including copying it to other unit owners...

FELLOW OWNERS:

As an attorney I have seen too many good liars spin a very credible story by building half truths and outright falsehoods around a core of basic truths. Because the basic truth and half truths can be verified, people tend to believe the falsehoods that are attached. Half truths are intentionally designed to mislead. What I see here is an incredible number of half truths and possibly worse.

This is how I see it when I review the letters from Diamond Resorts and Carlos Costa, our Board President.
1. Diamond Says: "Furthermore in 2007 Diamond did not charge you any management fees for a year and half."
That statement may be true BUT: I have never known a Management Company to be able to operate for free. Therefore, I must assume that they received their benefit in some other way. Since I don’t have access to the books, I can’t tell. It could be that they deducted the management fees from their share of the maintenance fees since the audit showed that they were delinquent at the end of 2007 and 2008. It could be that they deducted the fees from any rental income that the Association might have been entitled to. I do know this: Their services are not for free.

2. About Legal Services, Diamond Says: "Diamond does not charge you anyt hing for this service." Again a half truth. It is my understanding that like many management companies, they deduct the cost of legal fees and costs from the amounts collected. Therefore, while they may not charge us directly as a budget item, they are in fact being paid out of our money. If we have outside counsel, yes, it will be a line item on our budget but offsetting and hopefully greater will be the collections, all of it. I AM EXTREMELY DISTURBED THAT DIAMOND KEEPS THE UNITS THAT ARE FORECLOSED ON. I BELIEVE THAT THEY BELONG TO THE ASSOCIATION. They may take the approach that if they collect the back due maintenance fees that they are entitled to keep the unit. This is not true and I believe that absent a specific agreement, that they should be turned over to the Association. They should have been pursuing Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure to minimize the costs. This is something that our Board can offer delinquent owners who wish to release their unit. I handle about 50-100 bankruptcies each year and many debtors surrender their units. Those units should go directly to the Association and not Diamond.

3. About maintenance fees: Diamond says: They are "fully paid up with more than $600,000 in 2008 fees and more than $250,000 in 2009 fees." Carlos Says: "...the 2007 audit showed that the Association was due $574,429 from the Developer and by December 31, 2008 this figure grew to $691,474.29." SOMEONE IS LYING! Unless they recently paid up in202009 so that they could make the claim that they are paid up. If this is the case, then again we have another half truth meant to mislead. As unit owners we are entitled to audit reports of our Association and if in fact Diamond was delinquent at 12/31/2008, then I think that their credibility no longer exists.

4. Diamond says that they paid 100% of our Bad Debt expense every year. As I understand it, they pay the maintenance fees so that they can rent out the units since the owners cannot use them if they are delinquent. So while they collect anywhere from $500-$1,500 for each week as rental fees, we only get the maintenance fee and they keep the rest. I have to believe that the rental income far exceeds the cost of the maintenance fees for all of the units they pay, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

5. Turnover problems: If Diamond had anything to do with the problems that the owners of Poly IV experienced, they should be sued. If they delayed turning over records, the owners should be compensated.
When Marilyn Windsor wrote back to me I was surprised that she didn’t deny the more serious allegations in Carlos’ letter. Her only response was more of the typical scare tactics that companies use to preserve their jobs.
Living outside of Florida, it is hard for me to keep up with what is going on at our resort. I have to rely on the judgment of our Board members who serve without pay. I beli eve that Diamond Resort has a severe conflict of interest in trying to act as our management agent and an owner. If they benefit at our expense because they control the operations for their own rental programs then they have violated the fiduciary trust placed on them and cannot continue. We need to hire a management company that works for us and not themselves. While much of what Diamond tells you may be true, it is not the whole truth but only a half truth. In a court of law you are sworn to tell the whole truth. Anything less is a lie. That kind of deception concerns me and has lost my trust.

Carlos, you have my full support and my best wishes for success.

Charles and Marsha Schutze
Unit 221 Week

 

[youmehs]

Ownership Stages.

Being a concerned owner is good....being a informed owner is heaven.
We are all concerned, some are consumed with concern. In this day and age we live in knowing correct knowledge is powerful, and it leads a concerned mind to an open mind.
Open mindedness is the lynchpin for good judgement. From what all I have read from both sides, DRI has the goods to run this for us. READ ME/HEAR ME!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....you'll all gripe because you have to pay someone to run our resort.
The way I see it, the few are leading the many down a path of great concern.
I am part of the many, so if you are like me, the many....PLEASE READ ON...
My sister had 2 units in POLY 4.
I have been able to obtain a copy of the SPM management agreement with Phase IV and have had a chance to review it. I also have my copy of the Diamond management agreement. I have been told that the SPM management agreement for Phase I will be similar or the same as the one for Phase IV, if this is true, I think as the MANY owners we need to ask the following questions of both boards. In reading many of the posts, it appears that we owners are under the false impression that we will have a say or “vote” in who the board hires as a management company. I am told that this is not the case and that the Poly I board has already voted to sign a contract with SPM as soon as they terminate the agreement with Diamond. So much for our vote. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like this, and I don’t think we should allow this board to make decisions like this that we will end up paying for. Here are the questions I have after reading the two management agreements:

1. THIS IS A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT. WHY WOULD WE ENTER INTO A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT WITH A COMPANY WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT? THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIAMOND IS 3 YEARS, AND I THINK 3 YEARS IS A STANDARD TERM FOR A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.

2. THE BOARD CANNOT TERMINATE THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT EARLY WITHOUT PENALTIES, THEY CAN ONLY VOTE TO NOT RENEW AT THE END OF THE 5 YEAR TERM. MR. COSTA CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT THE BOARD CAN TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME; HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT.


3. THIS SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT MENTIONS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MORE THAN 5 TIMES, IF THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THEN WHY IS IT MENTIONED SO MANY TIMES?

4. THE SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT STATES THAT SPM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING ALL OWNER AND BOARD MEETINGS AND THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE AGENDA AND DISTRIBUTING THE NECESSARY MATERIALS. SPM IS NOT PERFORMING THIS DUTY FOR PHASE IV, THIS IS BEING PERFORMED BY PHASE IV’S ATTORNEY, AND I WOULD ASSUME THE ATTORNEY IS CHARGING THE OWNERS FOR THIS SERVICE. SPM IS COLLECTING MANAGEMENT FEES FROM PHASE IV TO PERFORM THIS DUTY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE OWNERS ARE ALSO BEING REQUIRED TO PAY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE SAME DUTY.

5. THE SPM AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE OWNERS TO PAY AT LEAST $650 A MONTH IN ACCOUNTING FEES EVEN THOUGH THE OWNERS ARE PAYING SPM A MANAGEMENT FEE TO PERFORM THESE ACCOUNTING DUTIES. SPM WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON THIS $650 A MONTH PAYMENT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO CHARGE MANAGEMENT FEES ON ACCOUNTING SERVICES THAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY?

6. THERE IS A SECTION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT I THINK REALLY REQUIRES SOME CLARIFICATION, IT ALMOST READS AS IF THE BOARD IS ALLOWING SPM TO COMINGLE ASSOCIATION FUNDS WITH OTHER ASSOCIATION FUNDS. COMINGLING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

7. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTIONS. IT STATES THAT THEY WILL ONLY SEND A LATE NOTICE AND THEN THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND PAY ATTORNEY FEES FOR ALL COLLECTIONS. SPM WILL NOT PROVIDE THESE COLLECTION SERVICES, BUT THEY WILL TAKE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL COLLECTED ACCOUNTS. THEY WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY THE OWNERS. DIAMOND CURRENTLY OFFERS ALL COLLECTION SERVICES AT NO COST TO THE OWNERS. DIAMOND ALSO PAYS ALL LEGAL FEES FOR COLLECTIONS/FORECLOSURES. DIAMOND ALSO HAS A STAFF OF MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE COLLECTION CALLS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION, UNDER THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, SPM WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THESE SERVICES.

8. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES IF THE ASSOCIATION RUNS OUT OF MONEY IN ANY GIVEN YEAR THAT THE BOARD WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE OWNERS. IT ALSO STATES THAT SPM WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY. IN THE PAST DIAMOND/SUNTERRA HAS ALWAYS ASSISTED THIS ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY. DIAMOND HAS WAIVED MANAGEMENT FEES OF MORE THAN $180,000 AND MADE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO THE POLY ASSOCIATIONS IN EXCESS OF $600,000. THIS WAS DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE OWNERS DID NOT HAVE A HIGHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PREVIOUS HURRICANE DAMAGE. THIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DOES NOT STATE THAT SPM WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES ON THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

9. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM WILL ONLY ATTEND 1 ANNUAL MEETING A YEAR. DOES THIS MEAN THAT IF MORE THAN ONE OWNER MEETING IS NEEDED THAT SPM WILL CHARGE US EXTRA? SHOULDN’T THEY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY THERE ARE?

10. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LEGAL FEES FOR SPM, EVEN IF SPM DOES SOMETHING WRONG, AND EVEN IF SPM IS NO LONGER THE MANAGER.

11. THERE IS A SECTION THAT ALLOWS SPM TO COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES BASED ON “ALL MONEY COLLECTED”. THE FEE CAN VARY FROM 6.5% - 10%. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ALSO ALLOWS SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ITS OWN MANAGEMENT FEE. SPM WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE UP TO A 10% MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE ASSOCIATION BANK ACCOUNTS. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, SPM WILL BE MAKING A MANAGEMENT FEE OFF OF THE LEGAL FEES THE OWNERS WILL BE PAYING FOR COLLECTIONS AND A MANAGEMENT FEE OF THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. IN REVIEWING THE FINANCIALS FOR THE ASSOCIATION, I SEE THAT DIAMOND/SUNTERRA NEVER CHARGED US A MANAGEMENT FEE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. DIAMOND’S MANAGEMENT FEE IS A FLAT FEE PER INTERVAL, IT DOES NOT GO UP AND CAN BE BUDGETED FOR ACCORDINGLY. THIS FEE STRUCTURE FOR SPM CANNOT BE BUDGETED ADEQUATELY AND WE WILL NEVER KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW MUCH THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE CHARGING US FOR MANAGEMENT FEES.

12. SEVERAL KEY ITEMS ARE ALSO MISSING FROM THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT. SUCH AS, 1) WHO DO THE EMPLOYEES WORK FOR? ARE THEY EMPLOYEES OF SPM OR THE ASSOCIATION? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND PAYROLL TAXES? WHO WILL PROCESS PAYROLL FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND IS THERE A FEE FOR THESE SERVICES? WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A CLAIM MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE? 2) WHO IS PROVIDING RESERVATION SOFTWARE AND COMPUTERS? WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE ITEMS? 3) WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THESE ITEMS?

Are we doormats? I mean come on folks. I feel a ball and chain coming!

 

[youmehs]

POLY I----Warning!!!!!!

[Duplicate posts are not permitted on TUG - if you have more comments on this issue, please post them in this thread. - DeniseM Moderator]

 

[TUGBrian]

note for those of you reading this that are poly HOA/BOD members, I would be happy to host any scanned documents/info etc for you here on TUG if you need a place to allow your members to view the information more easily.

please let me know if you require any assistance.

 

[DianeNYS]

Thank you, Brian

note for those of you reading this that are poly HOA/BOD members, I would be happy to host any scanned documents/info etc for you here on TUG if you need a place to allow your members to view the information more easily.

please let me know if you require any assistance.

That is very kind of you, and it really *would* help if they took you up on your offer...Thanks!

 

[tatvan]

Being a concerned owner is good....being a informed owner is heaven.
We are all concerned, some are consumed with concern. In this day and age we live in knowing correct knowledge is powerful, and it leads a concerned mind to an open mind.
Open mindedness is the lynchpin for good judgement. From what all I have read from both sides, DRI has the goods to run this for us. READ ME/HEAR ME!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....you'll all gripe because you have to pay someone to run our resort.
The way I see it, the few are leading the many down a path of great concern.
I am part of the many, so if you are like me, the many....PLEASE READ ON...
My sister had 2 units in POLY 4.
I have been able to obtain a copy of the SPM management agreement with Phase IV and have had a chance to review it. I also have my copy of the Diamond management agreement. I have been told that the SPM management agreement for Phase I will be similar or the same as the one for Phase IV, if this is true, I think as the MANY owners we need to ask the following questions of both boards. In reading many of the posts, it appears that we owners are under the false impression that we will have a say or “vote” in who the board hires as a management company. I am told that this is not the case and that the Poly I board has already voted to sign a contract with SPM as soon as they terminate the agreement with Diamond. So much for our vote. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like this, and I don’t think we should allow this board to make decisions like this that we will end up paying for. Here are the questions I have after reading the two management agreements:

1. THIS IS A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT. WHY WOULD WE ENTER INTO A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT WITH A COMPANY WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT? THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIAMOND IS 3 YEARS, AND I THINK 3 YEARS IS A STANDARD TERM FOR A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.

2. THE BOARD CANNOT TERMINATE THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT EARLY WITHOUT PENALTIES, THEY CAN ONLY VOTE TO NOT RENEW AT THE END OF THE 5 YEAR TERM. MR. COSTA CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT THE BOARD CAN TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME; HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT.


3. THIS SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT MENTIONS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MORE THAN 5 TIMES, IF THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THEN WHY IS IT MENTIONED SO MANY TIMES?

4. THE SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT STATES THAT SPM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING ALL OWNER AND BOARD MEETINGS AND THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE AGENDA AND DISTRIBUTING THE NECESSARY MATERIALS. SPM IS NOT PERFORMING THIS DUTY FOR PHASE IV, THIS IS BEING PERFORMED BY PHASE IV’S ATTORNEY, AND I WOULD ASSUME THE ATTORNEY IS CHARGING THE OWNERS FOR THIS SERVICE. SPM IS COLLECTING MANAGEMENT FEES FROM PHASE IV TO PERFORM THIS DUTY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE OWNERS ARE ALSO BEING REQUIRED TO PAY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE SAME DUTY.

5. THE SPM AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE OWNERS TO PAY AT LEAST $650 A MONTH IN ACCOUNTING FEES EVEN THOUGH THE OWNERS ARE PAYING SPM A MANAGEMENT FEE TO PERFORM THESE ACCOUNTING DUTIES. SPM WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON THIS $650 A MONTH PAYMENT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO CHARGE MANAGEMENT FEES ON ACCOUNTING SERVICES THAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY?

6. THERE IS A SECTION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT I THINK REALLY REQUIRES SOME CLARIFICATION, IT ALMOST READS AS IF THE BOARD IS ALLOWING SPM TO COMINGLE ASSOCIATION FUNDS WITH OTHER ASSOCIATION FUNDS. COMINGLING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

7. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTIONS. IT STATES THAT THEY WILL ONLY SEND A LATE NOTICE AND THEN THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND PAY ATTORNEY FEES FOR ALL COLLECTIONS. SPM WILL NOT PROVIDE THESE COLLECTION SERVICES, BUT THEY WILL TAKE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL COLLECTED ACCOUNTS. THEY WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY THE OWNERS. DIAMOND CURRENTLY OFFERS ALL COLLECTION SERVICES AT NO COST TO THE OWNERS. DIAMOND ALSO PAYS ALL LEGAL FEES FOR COLLECTIONS/FORECLOSURES. DIAMOND ALSO HAS A STAFF OF MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE COLLECTION CALLS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION, UNDER THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, SPM WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THESE SERVICES.

8. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES IF THE ASSOCIATION RUNS OUT OF MONEY IN ANY GIVEN YEAR THAT THE BOARD WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE OWNERS. IT ALSO STATES THAT SPM WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY. IN THE PAST DIAMOND/SUNTERRA HAS ALWAYS ASSISTED THIS ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY. DIAMOND HAS WAIVED MANAGEMENT FEES OF MORE THAN $180,000 AND MADE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO THE POLY ASSOCIATIONS IN EXCESS OF $600,000. THIS WAS DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE OWNERS DID NOT HAVE A HIGHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PREVIOUS HURRICANE DAMAGE. THIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DOES NOT STATE THAT SPM WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES ON THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

9. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM WILL ONLY ATTEND 1 ANNUAL MEETING A YEAR. DOES THIS MEAN THAT IF MORE THAN ONE OWNER MEETING IS NEEDED THAT SPM WILL CHARGE US EXTRA? SHOULDN’T THEY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY THERE ARE?

10. THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LEGAL FEES FOR SPM, EVEN IF SPM DOES SOMETHING WRONG, AND EVEN IF SPM IS NO LONGER THE MANAGER.

11. THERE IS A SECTION THAT ALLOWS SPM TO COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES BASED ON “ALL MONEY COLLECTED”. THE FEE CAN VARY FROM 6.5% - 10%. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ALSO ALLOWS SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ITS OWN MANAGEMENT FEE. SPM WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE UP TO A 10% MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE ASSOCIATION BANK ACCOUNTS. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, SPM WILL BE MAKING A MANAGEMENT FEE OFF OF THE LEGAL FEES THE OWNERS WILL BE PAYING FOR COLLECTIONS AND A MANAGEMENT FEE OF THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. IN REVIEWING THE FINANCIALS FOR THE ASSOCIATION, I SEE THAT DIAMOND/SUNTERRA NEVER CHARGED US A MANAGEMENT FEE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. DIAMOND’S MANAGEMENT FEE IS A FLAT FEE PER INTERVAL, IT DOES NOT GO UP AND CAN BE BUDGETED FOR ACCORDINGLY. THIS FEE STRUCTURE FOR SPM CANNOT BE BUDGETED ADEQUATELY AND WE WILL NEVER KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW MUCH THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE CHARGING US FOR MANAGEMENT FEES.

12. SEVERAL KEY ITEMS ARE ALSO MISSING FROM THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT. SUCH AS, 1) WHO DO THE EMPLOYEES WORK FOR? ARE THEY EMPLOYEES OF SPM OR THE ASSOCIATION? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND PAYROLL TAXES? WHO WILL PROCESS PAYROLL FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND IS THERE A FEE FOR THESE SERVICES? WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A CLAIM MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE? 2) WHO IS PROVIDING RESERVATION SOFTWARE AND COMPUTERS? WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE ITEMS? 3) WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THESE ITEMS?

Are we doormats? I mean come on folks. I feel a ball and chain coming!

I see you are a guest and have been for only a few weeks...
I've seen enough of your post...March 23 'I'm Voting Diamond' and another post on March 30 'Hello Poly Friends" ...
You are underhanded and deceiving. You want us to believe you're a walk around owner.
Actually you seem to be and impress me to believe you are in fact some sort.
DRI employee.
I can appreciate the March 31 post from Shawn Ericson who wrote what he wanted to say and signed his name and his position with DRI. He was not trying to be sneeky about whathe was saying..... you on the other hand...
With you attempting to be deceptive, you lose all creditability with me. If most of the team at DRI are like you owners have to get rid of DRI...

Thelma

 

[lv_maui]

I see you are a guest and have been for only a few weeks...
I've seen enough of your post...March 23 'I'm Voting Diamond' and another post on March 30 'Hello Poly Friends" ...
You are underhanded and deceiving. You want us to believe you're a walk around owner.
Actually you seem to be and impress me to believe you are in fact some sort.
DRI employee.
I can appreciate the March 31 post from Shawn Ericson who wrote what he wanted to say and signed his name and his position with DRI. He was not trying to be sneeky about whathe was saying..... you on the other hand...
With you attempting to be deceptive, you lose all creditability with me. If most of the team at DRI are like you owners have to get rid of DRI...

Thelma

Thelma, I have read this post also and I can understand your concern but the questions are very legitimate since no one will give the Poly owners the facts, it should be considered.

I think that numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are not of concern, but the other items are very important. Is it true that a 5 year deal is being cut? I personally always push for an agreement that can be 5 years but gives the ability to terminate with or without cause after one year. SPM and DRI should agree to this each.

My problem with the Poly board strictly from what I have seen posted here is that they do not provide facts, just rhetoric. They make a statement and then ramble on to another idle statement.

But I am not an owner so I really should not care.