Streamside: Has The Aspen Board Gone Crazy?

[Hoc]

Will Marriott bail out on the other buildings as well? As was the case with Swallowtail and Spicebush on HH, they conveniently stopped managing the property and the new mgmt company found they were very deficient in the job they did. Now they are being sued. Any ideas on this?

Very interesting. I'm detecting a pattern. Looks like they did the same thing at SB and ST as they did at Streamside.

 

[Kazakie]

SA buffer??

Look here for the 2006 special assessments and fees for each week.

And then here to verify that the same special assessment is being imposed for each of the next four years.

Hoc's on the ball.

The posted docs say the SA is $600,000/year, and when you run the numbers based on their schedule it totals to $599,985 (6 weeks are for maintenance) - an excess of Zero. Shouldn't the HOA put in some buffer for the SA fees that won't be paid? (owners going into default, giving back units, etc).

How are the SA (and maint fees) covered if either the HOA owns the week or they go into default?

It was posted before that the HOA may own 75 out of 1,380 weeks (30*(52-6)), which alone is 5.4%, not to mention that 33 weeks are listed as FSOB on the resorts website (another 2.4%).

 

[ondeadlin]

Re: SA buffer??

It was posted before that the HOA may own 75 weeks out of 1,560 (30*52), which alone is 4.8%, not to mention that 33 weeks are listed as FSOB on the resorts website (another 2.1%).

No maybe about it, they're offering up 75 weeks via sealed auction:

http://www.aspenatstreamside.us/julyauction.html

I didn't realize it was a four year accessment.

So if you "won" the auction for a January 1BR Aspen ski week for $1, you'd owe $5520 in MF and accessments over the next four years, for a 2BR you'd owe $8536. And, as Kaz points out, that's assuming everyone pays the MF/accessment and prices don't rise.

That's an amazingly bad deal with a fair amount of risk.

 

[bogey21]

Re: SA buffer??

So if you "won" the auction for a January 1BR Aspen ski week for $1, you'd owe $5520 in MF and accessments over the next four years, for a 2BR you'd owe $8536.

Could I bid where they would pay me to take the Week? Otherwise, I'll just wait 3 or 4 years and see how things are playing out before looking to buy!

GEORGE

 

[Kazakie]

Aspen & Cedar??

I thought VRI was managing both Cedar and Aspen???

Anyone know what the Cedar building is doing?
www.vrivacations.com/resorts/csc/index.html

 

[wsrobinson]

I think that's likely.



Not yet, but they have until 2010 to actually file one.

Yes, they have. See post #19 for the link to the article.

 

[Steel5Rings]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

I thought VRI was managing both Cedar and Aspen???

Anyone know what the Cedar building is doing?
www.vrivacations.com/resorts/csc/index.html

I got a letter from the Cedar Board yesterday with an official intro to VRI. They recapped how Marriott jerked them around. They stated that we should see a decrease in operating cost under VRI.

They also noted that they will finish the springler system work in progress but with a new contractor that is less than the contractor Marriott would have required.

In my conversations with several board members, I have got the feeling that we will see a freeze at Cedar on MFs this year and a decrease in 08.

 

[mj2vacation]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

geee. a second rate company can "maintain" a second rate resort at second rate levels.....


I dunno, maybe I am jaded, but why doesn't mrriott give them the Kauai beach clb, monarch, the rest of streamside, breckenridge, and a few of the resorts on HHI, and Marriott owners are better off.

The annoying thing s that Marriott is the bad "guy" nomatter what.

Marriott is not perfect, but they are not totally inept either.

 

[Steel5Rings]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

geee. a second rate company can "maintain" a second rate resort at second rate levels.....


I dunno, maybe I am jaded, but why doesn't mrriott give them the Kauai beach clb, monarch, the rest of streamside, breckenridge, and a few of the resorts on HHI, and Marriott owners are better off.

The annoying thing s that Marriott is the bad "guy" nomatter what.

Marriott is not perfect, but they are not totally inept either.

Don't get me wrong, I love the product that MVCI has out there. But if you have been burned by marriott like I have as a Cedar owner, I think you would too realize this is about more than your nice week of vacation at OP or Ko'Olina...THIS IS BUSINESS!!!! And when it comes to business, Marriott is no different on outsourcing its resorts than say GM or Black and Decker are outsourcing high paying jobs to Mexico or China...IT IS BUSINESS.

So if your Marriott resort is built out and aging, watch out, you could be next.

 

[Steve]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

While I have empathy for the frustration involved if your resort has been dropped by Marriott, I really don't think it's cause for alarm for most Marriott owners...at least not at this point.

As a former Streamside owner (Birch building) and as one who has stayed at the resort, I really don't feel that most of the buildings at Streamside are capable of being brought up to Marriott standards. (The only exception being Evergreen which was built by Marriott and could be brought up to current standards with a lot of work.)

The Aspen and Cedar buildings (and also Birch and Douglas) are of very dated design. They just do not fit with Marriott's floorplans and specifications. There is no way this could be remedied short of tearing the buildings down and starting over. This is not to say that they aren't desirable...but they do not offer a Marriott experience. Adding nicer furniture and granite counter tops won't change this.

Marriott has a very valuable brand and it's extremely important that they protect it. Their future success depends upon it. Streamside has not met the expectations of many, many Marriott owners who have exchanged into the resort. I really don't think you can fault the company for taking steps to protect the brand by dropping resorts that don't...and realistically can't...measure up.

When I purchased my Streamside week, I knew that the resort wasn't up to the quality and standards of a Marriott. It's true I had stayed at the resort previous to purchasing there, but anyone can tell this by 1) the much lower purchase price, 2) looking at the pictures of the resort on Marriott's website (or TUG, or II, or RCI), and 3) reading the TUG reviews.

Indeed, just looking at the resale prices of Streamside versus Marriott's Mountainside or Summit Watch in Park City, it's obvious that Streamside isn't on the same level. By purchasing at Streamside, buyers saved a lot of money but with that savings they inherited the risk that Marriott could pull out at any time. While this is upsetting if you purchased for the internal Marriott trade priority, I think some of the complaints are excessive.

If and when Marriott starts dropping resorts they have built that are getting older...such as Desert Springs in California and Cypress Harbour, Sabal Palms, and Royal Palms in Orlando...then I think there is cause for legitimate concern. At this point, Marriott has only dropped resorts which were not built by them and which truly do not fit the profile of a MVCI resort.



Steve

 

[Dean]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Don't get me wrong, I love the product that MVCI has out there. But if you have been burned by marriott like I have as a Cedar owner, I think you would too realize this is about more than your nice week of vacation at OP or Ko'Olina...THIS IS BUSINESS!!!! And when it comes to business, Marriott is no different on outsourcing its resorts than say GM or Black and Decker are outsourcing high paying jobs to Mexico or China...IT IS BUSINESS.

So if your Marriott resort is built out and aging, watch out, you could be next.

Wasn't it the resorts in question that left Marriott rather than the other way around though I'm sure it was under pressure. Regardless, they did not, would not or could not keep the resort up to Marriott standards. Anyone who buys a timeshare should know that things can and do change over time including a SA, management companies, yearly fees, resort awards, etc. It comes with the territory, esp if one buys a low level resort with the idea of gaming the system for Marriott to Marriott exchanges. Some said no way would Marriott be willing to leave Vail, they also said no way could the resorts there be split up, both points of view proved to be incorrect.

 

[Steel5Rings]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Wasn't it the resorts in question that left Marriott rather than the other way around though I'm sure it was under pressure. Regardless, they did not, would not or could not keep the resort up to Marriott standards. Anyone who buys a timeshare should know that things can and do change over time including a SA, management companies, yearly fees, resort awards, etc. It comes with the territory, esp if one buys a low level resort with the idea of gaming the system for Marriott to Marriott exchanges. Some said no way would Marriott be willing to leave Vail, they also said no way could the resorts there be split up, both points of view proved to be incorrect.

Well, certainly Dean, the investment in Streamside was less than my investment in Grande Vista. But the question remains two fold. One, when Marriott managed Aspen and Cedar, why did they not make a case for more rapid updates? Second, why did Marriott SIGN a contract with Cedar and then have Cedar owners agree to a special assessment and hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements only to pull the plug. Everytime Cedar tried to meet Marriott standards we were told that we need to use a "Marriott Contractor", always at a higher cost.

I certainly understand the arguments about dropping Cedar and will agree that Cedar and Aspen are not up to Marriott standards, although they are very nice resorts. The thing that ticks off me and other Aspen/Cedar owners and I guess Spicetail and Swallowtail owners is the methods used by Marriott. THEY stop the upkeep. THEY say they need more in maintaince fees. THEY sign a renewal contract and the THEY throw up incredible roadblocks to meet the terms.

Marriott could have been much more fair if they would have said a year or 6 months in advance that they were dumping Cedar/Aspen.

So While I don't see this happening with Grande Vista and other Marriott built resorts anytime soon, I do think these less than straight forward business practices should give all Marriott owners pause. Especially as the resorts age.

 

[Dean]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Well, certainly Dean, the investment in Streamside was less than my investment in Grande Vista. But the question remains two fold. One, when Marriott managed Aspen and Cedar, why did they not make a case for more rapid updates? Second, why did Marriott SIGN a contract with Cedar and then have Cedar owners agree to a special assessment and hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements only to pull the plug. Everytime Cedar tried to meet Marriott standards we were told that we need to use a "Marriott Contractor", always at a higher cost.

I certainly understand the arguments about dropping Cedar and will agree that Cedar and Aspen are not up to Marriott standards, although they are very nice resorts. The thing that ticks off me and other Aspen/Cedar owners and I guess Spicetail and Swallowtail owners is the methods used by Marriott. THEY stop the upkeep. THEY say they need more in maintaince fees. THEY sign a renewal contract and the THEY throw up incredible roadblocks to meet the terms.

Marriott could have been much more fair if they would have said a year or 6 months in advance that they were dumping Cedar/Aspen.

So While I don't see this happening with Grande Vista and other Marriott built resorts anytime soon, I do think these less than straight forward business practices should give all Marriott owners pause. Especially as the resorts age.

There are many complexities to these situations and I suspect NONE of us have all the details, even those that think they do. I guess I just see it differently than most. In my mind this is likely at least as much on the resorts BOD than on Marriott.

 

[timeos2]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

So While I don't see this happening with Grande Vista and other Marriott built resorts anytime soon, I do think these less than straight forward business practices should give all Marriott owners pause. Especially as the resorts age.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just because they built it and manage doesn't mean they feel things are "up to snuff". I have to look at how they handle their hotels as they seem to take a page from that procedure. Just the fact that they built them has not been enough to mean they keep their name on the building. If I were an owner at any Marriott property that was nearing 7-12 years old I would start to worry no matter what the management may say.

 

[Hoc]

I just looked at the 2006 Budget. There are some interesting bits of information in there:

1. 2006 "Bad Debts" at Aspen increased by 400 percent, from $3,146 to $12,503
2. While they saved about $98,000 in administrative/maintenance costs previously paid to the HPUD, they paid approximately $180,000 in increased administrative/maintenance costs attributable just to the Aspen Building.
3. This includes maintenance costs, which increased about fivefold, from $17,002 in 2005 to $75,196 in 2006, which shows the level to which Marriott had let its maintenance duties slip in 2005. Although I suspect that some of the additional maintenance costs now go to groundskeeping, which previously had been handled by Marriott.
4. This also includes $70,311 for running the front desk, and $42,076 in administration that previously had been covered by the HPUD.
5. 2006 legal fees tripled, probably as a result of hiring counsel to oversee and update the by-laws regarding meetings and attendance that they chose to do in 2006.

 

[Hoc]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Second, why did Marriott SIGN a contract with Cedar and then have Cedar owners agree to a special assessment and hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements only to pull the plug.

Because Marriott knew that it needed the vote of three of the five Streamside Buildings in the HPUD to get the renewed management contract. So, when Birch and Cedar both agreed to make the changes and to pay the assessment, Marriott no longer needed both of them, and it chose to drop Cedar.

 

[Hoc]

Yes, they have. See post #19 for the link to the article.

No, that's Spicebush and Swallowtail. The Streamside owners haven't filed anything yet, though Marriott engaged in the same conduct there about which the Spicebush/Swallowtail owners are suing.

 

[ondeadlin]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Because Marriott knew that it needed the vote of three of the five Streamside Buildings in the HPUD to get the renewed management contract. So, when Birch and Cedar both agreed to make the changes and to pay the assessment, Marriott no longer needed both of them, and it chose to drop Cedar.

Hoc, I don't think this is accurate.

I believe it was the Cedar board which changed its mind.

 

[Steel5Rings]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Hoc, I don't think this is accurate.

I believe it was the Cedar board which changed its mind.

Not true. cedar went above and beyond to satisfy the Marriott terms. But at every step they met resistance. Cedar HAD A SIGNED renewal with Marriott and had the plans for updates, a timetable and had assessed a special assessment to MFs. Everything Cedar presented was denied. What wasn;t denied was rejected because they wanted a "Marriott" contractor only to do the work, at a much higher cost.

So in the end, they mutually parted....but clearly Cedar owners and board would have loved to stay with Marriott, Marriott just made so many hurdles most of which were due to either Marriott neglect when they ran it or Marriott greed on the updates.

 

[ondeadlin]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

Not true. cedar went above and beyond to satisfy the Marriott terms. But at every step they met resistance. Cedar HAD A SIGNED renewal with Marriott and had the plans for updates, a timetable and had assessed a special assessment to MFs. Everything Cedar presented was denied. What wasn;t denied was rejected because they wanted a "Marriott" contractor only to do the work, at a much higher cost.

So in the end, they mutually parted....but clearly Cedar owners and board would have loved to stay with Marriott, Marriott just made so many hurdles most of which were due to either Marriott neglect when they ran it or Marriott greed on the updates.

It seems we're having a disagreement of semantics here.

To me, Cedar wouldn't agree to Marriott's terms -- a Marriott contractor -- so the Cedar board is at fault. Marriott insists on Marriott contractors. That's common knowledge. If you don't want to do business that way, as is obvious, you won't remain a Marriott resort.

 

[timeos2]

Re: Aspen & Cedar??

It seems we're having a disagreement of semantics here.

To me, Cedar wouldn't agree to Marriott's terms -- a Marriott contractor -- so the Cedar board is at fault. Marriott insists on Marriott contractors. That's common knowledge. If you don't want to do business that way, as is obvious, you won't remain a Marriott resort.

Many management firms think they can skim even more money from resorts by requiring that the Boards use "approved" contractors. Refusing to do so shows a Board/Association that cares more about the owners than the bottom line of XXX Management. That's as it should be. The job, done properly as I'm sure every owner wanted, would have met Marriott standards even if done by "outside" contractors unwilling to pay the required percentage to the management. That is an unfair practice and if Marriott required that as part of any deal I would say good riddance. It has been the pattern of Marriott management to find a reason to drop resorts rather than help them remain in the system. One excuse is as good as another I suppose. In any case the only "fault" I'd assign to the Board is deciding to deal with a take it or leave it group like Marriott in the first place. They'll do much better with a management that cares about the resort more than their bottom line and which contractor does the work. If their management and contractors were so good why did the resort deteriorate to this point?

 

[EducatedConsumer]

Clash of cultures?

Many management firms think they can skim even more money from resorts by requiring that the Boards use "approved" contractors. Refusing to do so shows a Board/Association that cares more about the owners than the bottom line of XXX Management. That's as it should be. The job, done properly as I'm sure every owner wanted, would have met Marriott standards even if done by "outside" contractors unwilling to pay the required percentage to the management. That is an unfair practice and if Marriott required that as part of any deal I would say good riddance. It has been the pattern of Marriott management to find a reason to drop resorts rather than help them remain in the system. One excuse is as good as another I suppose. In any case the only "fault" I'd assign to the Board is deciding to deal with a take it or leave it group like Marriott in the first place. They'll do much better with a management that cares about the resort more than their bottom line and which contractor does the work. If their management and contractors were so good why did the resort deteriorate to this point?

I wonder if these comments are reflective of the clash of cultures that has hovered over Streamside for years? Historically, the "have's" at Streamside - - those who made the economic committment to Marriott quality (e.g. Evergreen owners) have been more willing to not only foot the bill, but empower the management company (with the appropriate checks and balances) to work with the contractors that it selects. Conversely, the "have not's" have never wanted to do business with Marriott, and simply wanted Streamside to stay/become a moderate-tier, non-Marriott quality resort. Interestingly, in a condominium community at which we own a home, there are a few - - an overwhelming minority -- who want to micromanage nearly every aspect of the management company's business decisions, including their vendor and contractor selections, in hope of saving a few bucks. My opinion is that if we selected and empowered the management company, then it is they (with the appropriate checks and balances) who should select their contractors and vendors. Quite honestly, I voted for the management company that currently supports our community, in part, because I trusted them, and they and we had similar values. I have no time to nickel to death every one of their decisions, as my time is too valuable. For that function, I pay a fee.

I wonder, therefore, is this truly a clash of cultures and people of different socio-economic make-up?

 

[timeos2]

Re: Clash of cultures?

I wonder if these comments are reflective of the clash of cultures that has hovered over Streamside for years? Historically, the "have's" at Streamside - - those who made the economic committment to Marriott quality (e.g. Evergreen owners) have been more willing to not only foot the bill, but empower the management company (with the appropriate checks and balances) to work with the contractors that it selects. Conversely, the "have not's" have never wanted to do business with Marriott, and simply wanted Streamside to stay/become a moderate-tier, non-Marriott quality resort. Interestingly, in a condominium community at which we own a home, there are a few - - an overwhelming minority -- who want to micromanage nearly every aspect of the management company's business decisions, including their vendor and contractor selections, in hope of saving a few bucks. My opinion is that if we selected and empowered the management company, then it is they (with the appropriate checks and balances) who should select their contractors and vendors. Quite honestly, I voted for the management company that currently supports our community, in part, because I trusted them, and they and we had similar values. I have no time to nickel to death every one of their decisions, as my time is too valuable. For that function, I pay a fee.

I wonder, therefore, is this truly a clash of cultures and people of different socio-economic make-up?

I don't think it is a culture clash. I've never seen a management, no matter how trustworthy or well intentioned, that didn't benefit from a strong oversight by a quality HOA Board. Any management that starts by saying "you must use only our contractors - vendors - personnel, etc" is already on the wrong side of the equation. A company that really offers a better service doesn't need it in a contract they will prove it by their actions and the value delivered. It isn't culture, it's getting the best value for the dollars spent. No micro-managing required (or desired!).

 

[armlem2]

Well for my 2 cents I am glad they require their contractors. I bought Marriott and Sheraton(staroptions) based on several factors. One of which was the ability to trade to like quality resorts. Wanting to know thodds are in my favor if I trade to another Marriott it will be of good quality, clean and well run. While there is no aboslute guarantee there is a high probablity and that is worth a premium to me. I didn't buy because it was the cheapest.

When I use to buy, rehab and manage apartment buildings quite often I didn't go with the lowest bid. Often a deciding factor was my relationship and history of working with the contractors. Would they do what I wanted and stand behind what they did. The same often happen when I sat on board that often dealt with bids on public projects.

Finally, I would see no benifit to Marriott to run any property into the ground and then dump it. One of the major benefits they have to sell, is the number of locations. While I don't know the details of what happen at these resorts, I would just tend to lean in Marriotts favor, if only because they have the most to lose in dropping resorts that are good and/or keeping those that don't measure up.

 

[Gadabout]

Re: Clash of cultures?

I wonder if these comments are reflective of the clash of cultures that has hovered over Streamside for years? Historically, the "have's" at Streamside - - those who made the economic committment to Marriott quality (e.g. Evergreen owners) have been more willing to not only foot the bill, but empower the management company (with the appropriate checks and balances) to work with the contractors that it selects. Conversely, the "have not's" have never wanted to do business with Marriott, and simply wanted Streamside to stay/become a moderate-tier, non-Marriott quality resort. Interestingly, in a condominium community at which we own a home, there are a few - - an overwhelming minority -- who want to micromanage nearly every aspect of the management company's business decisions, including their vendor and contractor selections, in hope of saving a few bucks. My opinion is that if we selected and empowered the management company, then it is they (with the appropriate checks and balances) who should select their contractors and vendors. Quite honestly, I voted for the management company that currently supports our community, in part, because I trusted them, and they and we had similar values. I have no time to nickel to death every one of their decisions, as my time is too valuable. For that function, I pay a fee.

I wonder, therefore, is this truly a clash of cultures and people of different socio-economic make-up?

Just because some people are careful with how they spend their money doesn't make them low-end. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" is full of frugal people who are wealthy, precisely because they were careful with their money.

I think the people who chose to make the break with Marriott were saying "We're happy with this, it meets our needs, but why should we pay more than we have to for it?" Toilet paper is toilet paper, and so on.