[2022] Marriott Grand Residence Club Lake Tahoe Resale Questions

[vikingsholm]

Thank you both for the input. I have a feeling if you rent out 5 out of 13, it should more or less covers the MF. Curious if you go with Tim Golobic, do they always rent? I've seen someone complained that Go-Koala don't rent at all. RW might work but I don't see much traffic there either. The enrollment can cost from 50k to 100k for 5000+ points purchase so guess I plan to do it opportunistically later and makes renting more important if go this route at all but I do like this idea for ultimate flexibility.

You'd want to think about how you allocate, considering points vs. rental weeks.

Rent out high value/high demand weeks for direct occupancy that are more sure to be taken (high season summer and winter), and will command a higher price.

The points you rent out (or sell for that year only, not sure what the correct term is for letting others use your points) could be off season, because then they can be used at any time, and you don't have to worry about whether the unit would be rented by somebody for a particular week (that might be lower demand/off season and unlikely to find a renter). Or if the points are from high season weeks, you'll be allocated more points to rent out and thus make more money off them.

 

[iftravel]

You'd want to think about how you allocate, considering points vs. rental weeks.

Rent out high value/high demand weeks for direct occupancy that are more sure to be taken (high season summer and winter), and will command a higher price.

The points you rent out (or sell for that year only, not sure what the correct term is for letting others use your points) could be off season, because then they can be used at any time, and you don't have to worry about whether the unit would be rented by somebody for a particular week (that might be lower demand/off season and unlikely to find a renter). Or if the points are from high season weeks, you'll be allocated more points to rent out and thus make more money off them.

Yeah, points are way more flexible to rent or to use but it requires a significant front investment of 75k and there is also a potential risk of GRC Tahoe leaving Marriott.

So if I do it, I may buy it mainly for renting out without the enrollment, with the flexibility of depositing weeks into II for trading. I just don’t have the confidence of venturing into a renting business.

 

[WBP]

We love the Grand Residence Club, Lake Tahoe. Our passion for the property goes back to the American Skiing Company Grand Summit days.

For someone looking for an alternative to second home ownership at Heavenly, I believe that GRC ownership may make sense.

I offer you one word of caution: read the reports, carefully, about the extent to which the structure, systems, fixtures, furnishings, and grounds of GRC, Lake Tahoe, have been capitalized, over the years, and their need for capital, in the very near future. Last I read, there was a lot that needed to be capitalized, in the very near future, at a potentially significant cost to the owners.

 

[igopogo]

Three things to factor in to your cost analysis if you are thinking of renting your weeks:

The HOA takes 10% of rental income.
The city takes 14%
There is a housekeeping fee per stay that can range from about $100 to about $300 depending on room size

A route to consider if you are more interested in one season is a winter or summer five week share. The MF is the same per week as a 13 week share but you don’t have to pay for weeks that you are unlikely to use or rent.

The issues that @WBP mentions in terms of deferred maintenance are real and will need to be reckoned with.

With all that said we are happy owners and spend probably 1/6 or our life at the resort. The staff is great and we honestly feel like family when we stay there.

 

[TimGolobic]

Thank you both for the input. I have a feeling if you rent out 5 out of 13, it should more or less covers the MF. Curious if you go with Tim Golobic, do they always rent? I've seen someone complained that Go-Koala don't rent at all. RW might work but I don't see much traffic there either. The enrollment can cost from 50k to 100k for 5000+ points purchase so guess I plan to do it opportunistically later and makes renting more important if go this route at all but I do like this idea for ultimate flexibility.

Thanks all for the polite pub.I don't want to cross a line by looking to advertise my service, so if this reply gets taken down, I completely understand. I wish it was just 5 weeks to cover your costs. My general rule of thumb is for an owner to break even with needing nearly all of their weeks. But important to keep in mind the quality of your weeks is different each year. There is a year you get almost all of the holidays in the same year and you will be profitable. The immediate next year you have no holidays and are a week after the holidays and you will break even or possibly be negative. The next 2 years are kind of in the middle. And then you're back to the big holiday year again. It is a 4-year roller coaster ride. I won't make you rich, just less poor.

 

[TimGolobic]

I understand the layout of every unit is different, and some location of the building that I am not ok with if I plan to work from there. I thought none has in-unit laundry, but I could be wrong. I can do it in the laundry room or take it home, it's no big deal

There are 51 floorplan variations for 199 rooms. Although many of the rooms of the same general style have the same sleeping arrangement, the sq ft difference makes the variations. The architects for American Ski Company may have been light-headed due to the altitude. Only the 6 penthouse units have in-room laundry (4 are 3 BR, 1 each for 1 BR and 2 BR, and 2 of the 3 BR have private hot tubs). There are other free laundry machines scattered about on different floors. Timber Lodge is much more consistent and "cookie cutter" (in a good way) thanks to Marriott designed and built.

 

[iftravel]

Thanks all for the polite pub.I don't want to cross a line by looking to advertise my service, so if this reply gets taken down, I completely understand. I wish it was just 5 weeks to cover your costs. My general rule of thumb is for an owner to break even with needing nearly all of their weeks. But important to keep in mind the quality of your weeks is different each year. There is a year you get almost all of the holidays in the same year and you will be profitable. The immediate next year you have no holidays and are a week after the holidays and you will break even or possibly be negative. The next 2 years are kind of in the middle. And then you're back to the big holiday year again. It is a 4-year roller coaster ride. I won't make you rich, just less poor.

Feels tough for quarter owners to be a renter. Curious which week would always rent for top money? Week 51 and 52? Perhaps it’s easier to figure out if it’s worth the buy-in for that week. Let’s say one pays 25k for Timber Lodge 2-bed week 51 and MF is 2k. Does it always rent for 5k every year? If so, it can be a good investment and returns 10%+ per year (plus the flexibility of not renting it)

Feel free to share your experience in the rental market around Tahoe and thank you.

 

[igopogo]

Just to add something new to the calculation, GRC owners received an email today that exchange users and “permitted guests” (which I take to be renters) will be charged for valet at some point in the future.

I usually stay at GRC using points, even though I am an owner, because we rarely need a full week and often need different sized units. I wonder whether I will need to pay for parking under this new scheme. If so I will be staying at Timberlodge instead, which is a bummer. As I stated, the staff at GRC are like family.

I’m betting this new charge will not be limited to GRC.

They are also now charging $50 for off cycle trash pickup. I haven’t fully confirmed this but that’s what I was told last time I checked in. Honestly I think folks should be able to bring their own trash to the trash room, which is generally not far from any villla, but $50 is a little crazy.

 

[dioxide45]

Just to add something new to the calculation, GRC owners received an email today that exchange users and “permitted guests” (which I take to be renters) will be charged for valet at some point in the future.

I usually stay at GRC using points, even though I am an owner, because we rarely need a full week and often need different sized units. I wonder whether I will need to pay for parking under this new scheme. If so I will be staying at Timberlodge instead, which is a bummer. As I stated, the staff at GRC are like family.

I’m betting this new charge will not be limited to GRC.

They are also now charging $50 for off cycle trash pickup. I haven’t fully confirmed this but that’s what I was told last time I checked in. Honestly I think folks should be able to bring their own trash to the trash room, which is generally not far from any villla, but $50 is a little crazy.

Can you share the email here?

Most resorts have instituted parking fees for non timeshare based stays (i.e. Marriott.com bookings.) Yours is the first to indicate "exchange users".

 

[Dean]

Just to add something new to the calculation, GRC owners received an email today that exchange users and “permitted guests” (which I take to be renters) will be charged for valet at some point in the future.

I usually stay at GRC using points, even though I am an owner, because we rarely need a full week and often need different sized units. I wonder whether I will need to pay for parking under this new scheme. If so I will be staying at Timberlodge instead, which is a bummer. As I stated, the staff at GRC are like family.

I’m betting this new charge will not be limited to GRC.

They are also now charging $50 for off cycle trash pickup. I haven’t fully confirmed this but that’s what I was told last time I checked in. Honestly I think folks should be able to bring their own trash to the trash room, which is generally not far from any villla, but $50 is a little crazy.

Technically a points reservation is an exchange so if accurate and implemented as stated here, it's likely that points reservations would also be charged.

 

[TimGolobic]

Just to add something new to the calculation, GRC owners received an email today that exchange users and “permitted guests” (which I take to be renters) will be charged for valet at some point in the future.

I usually stay at GRC using points, even though I am an owner, because we rarely need a full week and often need different sized units. I wonder whether I will need to pay for parking under this new scheme. If so I will be staying at Timberlodge instead, which is a bummer. As I stated, the staff at GRC are like family.

I’m betting this new charge will not be limited to GRC.

They are also now charging $50 for off cycle trash pickup. I haven’t fully confirmed this but that’s what I was told last time I checked in. Honestly I think folks should be able to bring their own trash to the trash room, which is generally not far from any villla, but $50 is a little crazy.

Conversations with the GM regarding this subject are
- only owners staying in their unit during their week get free parking
- friends, extended family, outside renters would be charged parking, which is a reversal of over 20 years of past practice
- Marriott.com bookings pay for parking, which has always been the case
- Abound guests would still get free parking, but not sure about Interval

This change in policy is a direct attack on owners who rent independently of Marriott or through my service. 100% of parking revenue goes to Marriott; none of it goes to the Association, despite the Association being responsible for garage maintenance costs in the budget. I urge GRC owners to complain about this change and further devaluation of their ownership.

 

[igopogo]

Copy paste isn’t cooperating. Here’s a screenshot.

This sets up even more perverse incentives for abound reservations vs owned reservations (there are so many at GRC). And for those of us who rent and follow the rules around city taxes and VHR permits, makes it more likely that others will skirt the taxes and lowball their rentals.

Can you share the email here?

Most resorts have instituted parking fees for non timeshare based stays (i.e. Marriott.com bookings.) Yours is the first to indicate "exchange users".

 

[Dean]

Copy paste isn’t cooperating. Here’s a screenshot.

This sets up even more perverse incentives for abound reservations vs owned reservations (there are so many at GRC). And for those of us who rent and follow the rules around city taxes and VHR permits, makes it more likely that others will skirt the taxes and lowball their rentals.

View attachment 108610

If put into effect I'll be dramatically surprised if Abound points reservations aren't charged but guests of owners are.

 

[vacationtime1]

Conversations with the GM regarding this subject are
- only owners staying in their unit during their week get free parking
- friends, extended family, outside renters would be charged parking, which is a reversal of over 20 years of past practice
- Marriott.com bookings pay for parking, which has always been the case
- Abound guests would still get free parking, but not sure about Interval

This change in policy is a direct attack on owners who rent independently of Marriott or through my service. 100% of parking revenue goes to Marriott; none of it goes to the Association, despite the Association being responsible for garage maintenance costs in the budget. I urge GRC owners to complain about this change and further devaluation of their ownership.

If this is all true, any Marriott-affilliated HOA Board member who permits the management company to do this would be in breach of their fiduciary duty.

For whom does the HOA Board work? Presumably the owners -- the HOA. So if a Board member allows money to be sent to their employer which could have been retained by the HOA, that Board member acts at his peril (which is insured by an E&O policy paid for by the HOA -- yikes).

 

[WorldT]

Conversations with the GM regarding this subject are
- only owners staying in their unit during their week get free parking
- friends, extended family, outside renters would be charged parking, which is a reversal of over 20 years of past practice
- Marriott.com bookings pay for parking, which has always been the case
- Abound guests would still get free parking, but not sure about Interval

This change in policy is a direct attack on owners who rent independently of Marriott or through my service. 100% of parking revenue goes to Marriott; none of it goes to the Association, despite the Association being responsible for garage maintenance costs in the budget. I urge GRC owners to complain about this change and further devaluation of their ownership.

How is that even possible? The HOA owns and pay for the garage maintenance but Marriott pockets the money. And why should my guests be charged extra if they are occupying my space?

 

[dioxide45]

How is that even possible? The HOA owns and pay for the garage maintenance but Marriott pockets the money. And why should my guests be charged extra if they are occupying my space?

Do we know that Marriott is pocketing the money from parking fees m? In other instances where parking fees have been implemented for transient rental guests, the fees are going to offset maintenance fees.

This does seem to be out of step with the latest Marriott brand standard implemented at most, if not all, Marriott timeshares. This type of policy is what led to a big issue at Beacholace towers many years ago. Marriott didn’t want to charge anyone for parking, but the board only wanted parking for free for owners.

I wonder if Marriott is on board with the proposed change.

 

[TimGolobic]

Without quoting several replies on the subject of parking revenue ...

Yes, I directly asked the GM and others present at the end of the last BOD meeting if 100% of parking revenue goes to Marriott, their reply was an unqualified "yes".

This is apparently in the Management Agreement, quite possibly pre-dating Marriott and going back to American Ski Company. And third-party rentals weren't really part of the equation at that time. They did some digging and interpreted that the CC&Rs only allow free parking for owners and family listed on the deed, therefore third-party rental guests, despite previously being considered "the guest of an owner" no longer gets that benefit. So when the current Management Agreement expires, there could be discussions of modernizing some of the legacy T&C.

The irony is that Marriott is guilty of the same budget-consciousness that they accuse the BOD of doing. The current valet staff has under 10 positions. The previous vendor was typically 25-30. Marriott pays the valet vendor and wants to spend as little as possible to maximize parking profit. This has caused Marriott to eliminate bell service since it is the valet staff that provided this service. That would cost them more. In essence, they themselves are "violating brand standards".

 

[dioxide45]

Without quoting several replies on the subject of parking revenue ...

Yes, I directly asked the GM and others present at the end of the last BOD meeting if 100% of parking revenue goes to Marriott, their reply was an unqualified "yes".

This is apparently in the Management Agreement, quite possibly pre-dating Marriott and going back to American Ski Company. And third-party rentals weren't really part of the equation at that time. They did some digging and interpreted that the CC&Rs only allow free parking for owners and family listed on the deed, therefore third-party rental guests, despite previously being considered "the guest of an owner" no longer gets that benefit. So when the current Management Agreement expires, there could be discussions of modernizing some of the legacy T&C.

The irony is that Marriott is guilty of the same budget-consciousness that they accuse the BOD of doing. The current valet staff has under 10 positions. The previous vendor was typically 25-30. Marriott pays the valet vendor and wants to spend as little as possible to maximize parking profit. This has caused Marriott to eliminate bell service since it is the valet staff that provided this service. That would cost them more. In essence, they themselves are "violating brand standards".

Thanks Tim. Good to know. I can now understand why Marriott is taking a different path at GRC than they did at BPT. Follow the money....

I know that many may not agree, but I don't like having bell services. We recently had two different stays at two Club Wyndham properties. Both in city and both had valet to the tune of $57/night. One of them just provided luggage carts for guests to use. The other had bell service people that you had to deal with and tip both up and down. No option to just use the cart yourself. Bell services is a hassle. You have to have them load your stuff up, wait till you're checked in then they deliver. Hand them some cash. Then have to call down at checkout and reverse the process. Then they want to help load the stuff in your car. This doesn't work for us as we drive to most destinations. I suppose if I just had a case or two it would be fine, but if I had a case or two I wouldn't need bell services.

 

[TimGolobic]

Thanks Tim. Good to know. I can now understand why Marriott is taking a different path at GRC than they did at BPT. Follow the money....

I know that many may not agree, but I don't like having bell services. We recently had two different stays at two Club Wyndham properties. Both in city and both had valet to the tune of $57/night. One of them just provided luggage carts for guests to use. The other had bell service people that you had to deal with and tip both up and down. No option to just use the cart yourself. Bell services is a hassle. You have to have them load your stuff up, wait till you're checked in then they deliver. Hand them some cash. Then have to call down at checkout and reverse the process. Then they want to help load the stuff in your car. This doesn't work for us as we drive to most destinations. I suppose if I just had a case or two it would be fine, but if I had a case or two I wouldn't need bell services.

Actually, I'm the same. Prefer to rely on myself to get where I need to be, but certainly if you are coming in with family and lots of bags, plus groceries, the extra help is beneficial. The problem now at GRC is nobody returns the luggage carts and the valet can't be tasked with rounding them up.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Thanks Tim. Good to know. I can now understand why Marriott is taking a different path at GRC than they did at BPT. Follow the money....

I know that many may not agree, but I don't like having bell services. We recently had two different stays at two Club Wyndham properties. Both in city and both had valet to the tune of $57/night. One of them just provided luggage carts for guests to use. The other had bell service people that you had to deal with and tip both up and down. No option to just use the cart yourself. Bell services is a hassle. You have to have them load your stuff up, wait till you're checked in then they deliver. Hand them some cash. Then have to call down at checkout and reverse the process. Then they want to help load the stuff in your car. This doesn't work for us as we drive to most destinations. I suppose if I just had a case or two it would be fine, but if I had a case or two I wouldn't need bell services.

Bell service and valet parking are excellent examples of the fluidity of "brand standards" in practice, most specifically with respect to the number of attendants required for each service. "Bell Service" might be a brand standard, as may be "valet parking," but at what staff-to-guest ratio is where the fluidity comes in. At those properties where MVW controls the board, if MVW is paying for the attendants out of its own pocket, there will be understaffing; however, wherever the owners are responsible for the personnel charges, MVW will argue for an absurd staff-to-guest ratio (resulting in overstaffing) because personnel charges feed multiple revenue streams for them at properties they manage, particularly those where the management fee is a percentage of the maintenance fees they bill to those who pay for the operation of the property.

At a number of high quality non-MVW properties services have been reduced in a way that does not detract from the overall experience at all, such as the elimination of 24/7 check-in (e.g., Four Seasons Aviara). Residence Clubs have many areas where cost-savings can be implemented without compromising the experience at the property, but those areas that generate revenue for MVW will continue to be forced on owners under the guise of "brand standards." The brand standards fallacy is being exposed at our property in current litigation. Amazing how "brand standards" included twice-a-day housekeeping when we gave them the money for it; but when we took the money away, wow, suddenly even daily housekeeping was dispensable. We have them dead-to-rights asserting that all of the cost-savings measures they implemented in 2024 when we limited their spending did not compromise the guest experience at all. This begs the question: Then why were they charging us so much before we started pushing back with the insistence that their absurd staffing levels were necessary to maintain "brand standards?"

 

[TimGolobic]

Bell service and valet parking are excellent examples of the fluidity of "brand standards" in practice, most specifically with respect to the number of attendants required for each service. "Bell Service" might be a brand standard, as may be "valet parking," but at what staff-to-guest ratio is where the fluidity comes in. Where MVW is paying for the attendants out of its own pocket (as appears to be the case with valet parking at GRC?), there will be understaffing; however, wherever the owners are responsible for the personnel charges, MVW will argue for an absurd staff-to-guest ratio (resulting in overstaffing) because personnel charges feed multiple revenue streams for them at properties they manage, particularly those where the management fee is a percentage of the maintenance fees they bill to those who pay for the operation of the property.

I'm not 100% positive if bell services were part of the Association budget, but it was, that was simply to subsidize Management's cost of valet services (since it is the same staff), and without the Association's contribution, that prompts M's desire to understaff and blame Association, despite the staffing needs for actual valet services are sacrificed. And a very common feedback complaint from guests is slow/poor/rude valet service.

 

[rcdcowner557]

If this is all true, any Marriott-affilliated HOA Board member who permits the management company to do this would be in breach of their fiduciary duty.

For whom does the HOA Board work? Presumably the owners -- the HOA. So if a Board member allows money to be sent to their employer which could have been retained by the HOA, that Board member acts at his peril (which is insured by an E&O policy paid for by the HOA -- yikes).

The case of Coley v Eskaton should give you some comfort. See this link for a high-level overview:

Self-Dealing by Director is a Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Self-dealing by a director is a breach of fiduciary duty, and these cases are expensive. If you have conflict of interest, don't participate.

communityassociations.law

 

[rcdcowner557]

Bell service and valet parking are excellent examples of the fluidity of "brand standards" in practice, most specifically with respect to the number of attendants required for each service. "Bell Service" might be a brand standard, as may be "valet parking," but at what staff-to-guest ratio is where the fluidity comes in. At those properties where MVW controls the board, if MVW is paying for the attendants out of its own pocket, there will be understaffing; however, wherever the owners are responsible for the personnel charges, MVW will argue for an absurd staff-to-guest ratio (resulting in overstaffing) because personnel charges feed multiple revenue streams for them at properties they manage, particularly those where the management fee is a percentage of the maintenance fees they bill to those who pay for the operation of the property.

At a number of high quality non-MVW properties services have been reduced in a way that does not detract from the overall experience at all, such as the elimination of 24/7 check-in (e.g., Four Seasons Aviara). Residence Clubs have many areas where cost-savings can be implemented without compromising the experience at the property, but those areas that generate revenue for MVW will continue to be forced on owners under the guise of "brand standards." The brand standards fallacy is being exposed at our property in current litigation. Amazing how "brand standards" included twice-a-day housekeeping when we gave them the money for it; but when we took the money away, wow, suddenly even daily housekeeping was dispensable. We have them dead-to-rights asserting that all of the cost-savings measures they implemented in 2024 when we limited their spending did not compromise the guest experience at all. This begs the question: Then why were they charging us so much before we started pushing back with the insistence that their absurd staffing levels were necessary to maintain "brand standards?"

And imagine our frustration when they took the money they were supposed to be spending on housekeeping for our units to pay for porter service and valet parking for the whole owners at our property. They were ignoring brand standards for the timeshare units and using our money to maintain brand standards for the whole owners who aren't paying for the services they are getting. MVW has great incentive to do this at our property because while they control the timeshare board through dominant Trust ownership, the whole owners control the Master Board and the management contract for the greater property.

 

[igopogo]

With @TimGolobic in the conversation and a wealth of knowledge, do you know if the housekeeping budget is all on the management side? As I mentioned previously, housekeeping fees for a stay can get over $200 but are only charged to owners and rentals of owned units, not to exchange guests or reservations from the Bonvoy site. If this is on the management side it seems like they are using owners to reduce costs on MVC reservations.