Trouble - Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe [Management Agreement in Jeopardy?]

[Eric B]

Why do you think I am a woman? That is messed up! I am glad that I do not live in this space!

In the quoted post, the word "here" was mistyped by @ocdb8r as "her" and not caught by spell check. At least that is my interpretation reading the word in the context "her[e] on TUG, for example". Had @ocdb8r, who as a fellow lawyer by trade and likely as fanatical about grammar as most lawyers, wanted to characterize you as a woman, the parenthetical would have read something like "as posted by her on TUG, for example."

 

[Eric B]

We all probably need to calm down and not take postings here all that personally. While I'm not a GRC owner and not directly affected by what is going on, I do understand the stress this is putting owners there through but the discussion in this thread is a sharing of information and potential interpretations of what that information means will happen in the future.

 

[jshriber]

In the quoted post, the word "here" was mistyped by @ocdb8r as "her" and not caught by spell check. At least that is my interpretation reading the word in the context "her[e] on TUG, for example". Had @ocdb8r, who as a fellow lawyer by trade and likely as fanatical about grammar as most lawyers, wanted to characterize you as a woman, the parenthetical would have read something like "as posted by her on TUG, for example."

Pretty sure I am referred to as the squeaky wheel here - he is referring to louder people.

• The squeaky wheel gets the oil - what I mean by that is that while as owners we all likely want to minimize our annual maintenance fees, I think in most cases the majority would like to retain the "brand name" manager and "brand standards" even if it does result in some extra cost....but, they are in many cases the quiet majority and the louder people who are outraged or want a change, are the ones that are talked about (her on TUG, for example).

Just to be clear - I really like Marriott. They just need a watchdog as we probably all do!

 

[TimGolobic]

We all probably need to calm down and not take postings here all that personally. While I'm not a GRC owner and not directly affected by what is going on, I do understand the stress this is putting owners there through but the discussion in this thread is a sharing of information and potential interpretations of what that information means will happen in the future.

Yep, this topic is getting waaaaayyyyyy off track.

 

[SueDonJ]

We all probably need to calm down and not take postings here all that personally. While I'm not a GRC owner and not directly affected by what is going on, I do understand the stress this is putting owners there through but the discussion in this thread is a sharing of information and potential interpretations of what that information means will happen in the future.

I agree, but I also believe that in these types of discussions when so much is at stake it is important to not make inferences that some of the information cannot be taken at face value because ulterior motives must be in play.

@jshriber, it's not "some kind of off limits sacred cow question" to ask if someone participating in a TUG thread is a Marriott employee or a lawyer or a plant from an HOA Board or anything at all! But you didn't plainly ask the question and you inferred that you knew that if such a question were answered truthfully, in the positive, it could only prove that the person you asked is participating for the purpose of protecting Marriott's interests. That's lazy on your part because it allows you to haphazardly discount for no good reason that person's opinions/perspectives. And it's insulting to those whose motives are made suspect simply by your introduction of that suspicion, because it discredits their opinions/perspectives in the eyes of other readers. Who are you to make such an accusation or to discredit other owners in that way?

So anybody who wants to ask? Fine, ask. Ask point-blank: "are you a Marriott employee now or have you ever been, or, have you any other reason at all to be here for the purpose of protecting Marriott's interests above those of the owners?" Don't couch it in cutesy accusations with nonsense about biases and incentives and motives and paranoia, just ask!

 

[LeslieDet]

Please be real. Of course the Board members didn't do anything wrong "intentionally"; they exercised their "business judgment" in Marriott's favor after reviewing relevant information presented as reflected in the Board minutes. That is how the business world works.

On what basis can you possibly state that Marriott cannot fire its employees (or not promote them, not pay them bonuses ,or otherwise make their lives miserable)? Of course Marriott will build a dossier on those employees' "misdeeds" unrelated to their Board activities -- especially if that is it the reason they are being fired or not promoted. That is how the business world works.

I am not suggesting that Marriott employees serving on HOA boards are dishonest. However, they come with an institutional bias which may result in them seeing an issue from a perspective different than the one most people (or most owners) would have.

I never said MVW can’t fire its employees; I was responding to the misleading claim that MVW can fire BOD members of the various HOAs. That isn’t how HOAs function.

 

[vacationtime1]

I never said MVW can’t fire its employees; I was responding to the misleading claim that MVW can fire BOD members of the various HOAs. That isn’t how HOAs function.

That is certainly correct, although MVW would not assist in extending the board tenure of such a person.

 

[LeslieDet]

The reserve number does not need to be 100 percent accurate (it is an estimate). I would rather carry a low reserve number - keep the money carried in my account than in a third party reserve. Financially it is better to pay a special assessment for capex for a budget line item that is highly scrutinized than have it be in an allowance slush fund with less oversight.

You profess to have some special knowledge relating to finances, but your statements reflect you do not understand how HOAs function. While you may have your personal reserves carried in your own account, that isn’t how the law applies to HOAs. So, no, the reserve isn’t some random person’s “slush fund” without oversight.

What you seem to be missing is the BOD is the oversight.

BTW - I’ve never been employed in house as a corporate lawyer or executive and in my entire career, I never represented Marriott International or Marriott Vacations Worldwide or any of the many affiliated entities. I did have clients who were considered “Fortune 50” businesses and I have significant experience with HOAs because I’ve owned homes with HOAs for almost 40 years. I’ve been a BOD member for many years. I’ve also litigated breach of fiduciary cases during my law career.

I find it silly that folks like you immediately go to the “they must work for Marriott” claim. It really gets old.

 

[ocdb8r]

Why do you think I am a woman? That is messed up!

Huh? I have no idea what this comment means.

I noticed you still did not answer the question about ever being paid by Marriott but that is ok. By the way, I like Marriott too - just believe they need a watchdog.

I didn't answer because it didn't even occur to me. No, I am not nor have I ever been affiliated with Marriott or MVC. The only thing I have ever been "paid" by MVC are a couple of gift cards and/or points from the few "owner updates" I have done...which are few and far between because I can't bare to listen to salesperson speak about the wonders of purchasing direct from MVC.

 

[ocdb8r]

In the quoted post, the word "here" was mistyped by @ocdb8r as "her" and not caught by spell check. At least that is my interpretation reading the word in the context "her[e] on TUG, for example". Had @ocdb8r, who as a fellow lawyer by trade and likely as fanatical about grammar as most lawyers, wanted to characterize you as a woman, the parenthetical would have read something like "as posted by her on TUG, for example."

Thanks - Was totally confused. I don't grammar check my TUG posts and this indeed was just a mis-type!

 

[ocdb8r]

Pretty sure I am referred to as the squeaky wheel here - he is referring to louder people.

• The squeaky wheel gets the oil - what I mean by that is that while as owners we all likely want to minimize our annual maintenance fees, I think in most cases the majority would like to retain the "brand name" manager and "brand standards" even if it does result in some extra cost....but, they are in many cases the quiet majority and the louder people who are outraged or want a change, are the ones that are talked about (her on TUG, for example).

Yes, in this specific portion of a very long thread, you are one of the squeaky wheels....but there are a lot with similar concerns in this thread and hundreds of other threads here on TUG with various concerns. I also didn't mean "squeaky wheel" in any pejorative sense. I am often the squeaky wheel in many areas of my life as I'm not afraid to speak up to voice my opinion. In this context I was trying to point out that we shouldn't forget about all the owners who are happy (or at least content) with their ownership and the status quo who are either not on TUG or who are too busy enjoying their vacations to bother coming to voice their satisfaction.

Just to be clear - I really like Marriott. They just need a watchdog as we probably all do!

I have no problem with checks and balances being in place. I think most HOAs do the best they can ensuring a good balance. However, that doesn't mean I always agree with them or think they are best placed to be the watchdog. The topic at hand is the annual budget for GRC. The current Board has fixated on the budget needing to be tied to a specific CPI measure that has limited correlation to the bucket of goods and services a resort requires to run. Despite significant back and forth in communications made public, there has been very little articulated by the Board where money is being wasted. At best there have been arguments made that money was spent that was not properly "authorized" (along with a raft of other concerns about areas where Marriott did (and in other cases "may have") acted improperly. None of that is persuasive to me about whether or not the budget proposed is outlandish.

On the flip side, there has been plenty of evidence the Board refused to authorize funds to pay for things like electricity (which eventually had to be paid out of the depleted reserve funds which are not supposed to be used to cover operating expenses), there are independent third-party reports outlining the reserve needs of the resort way in excess of reserve funds accumulated and the guidance of a large multinational resort manager (I'm talking about MVC here) as to what they believe the budget should be (...and even with the possibility of some type of self-interest in that budget, that doesn't mean it's completely useless or baseless). I don't believe there is a concrete "right" or "wrong" here, but on balance I'm not sure why one should give so much deference to a small group of "independent" owners with limited to no experience running a resort over some of the above. Remember, being independent from MVC doesn't mean they are disinterested.

 

[AlmostRetired]

I am not a GRC owner but find this interesting for a couple of reasons.

What first got me interested is really a self serving reason. I rent points from two GRC owners that must have 1/4 shares and if not, own a lot of units based on the volume of points they rent. I am not sure what the MF per points is with an exchange, but their pricing is very aggressive and in Jan 2024, I was able to purchase points that expire YE 2025 at between 67 and 69 cents a point. I wanted to follow to see if the source would dry up.

What continued my interest in the post is the relationship between the HOA and Marriott and the dynamics between the two, how owners think and the resolution. This could be any MVCI resort in the MVCI portfolio. The post became more interesting when the post started spinning off side topics. The post helped me better appreciate the resorts in the trust makes MVCI influence more powerful than just the management company. It changes the dynamics and will continue to do so over time. The Marriott brand is very important to me and I have a lot of time invested making sure the MVCI timeshare system works for me. There is a possibility that as the dynamics between the HOA representing owners, MVCI representing the trust and the MVCI management company shift, the shift could impact the ownership value for me. I have no control of the shifting dynamics and for me, thinking and worrying about it makes no sense because this is vacationing with my wife, my family at times and friends. If it isn't with timeshares it will be other ways. If the value goes down enough for any reason, my divesture will happen. I will be very content with just owning my one GO summer unit to use or trade and getting rid of it to be out of timeshares if need be.

I have always had and have a tremendous amount of gratitude for the HOA's for the time they put in. Whatever their motivation is for being on it or judging the job they are doing never worried me because I know I do not want to do it. What is making this post less interesting is how much conjecturing and speculation is going on about MVCI and their motivation. If at anytime I believe the the motivation is mainly in their self interest it will be evident over time on how things change. My reaction, see divesture above.

 

[ocdb8r]

I have always had and have a tremendous amount of gratitude for the HOA's for the time they put in. Whatever their motivation is for being on it or judging the job they are doing never worried me because I know I do not want to do it. What is making this post less interesting is how much conjecturing and speculation is going on about MVCI and their motivation. If at anytime I believe the the motivation is mainly in their self interest it will be evident over time on how things change. My reaction, see divesture above.

This is an important point and probably one that doesn't sufficiently come off in my recent posts. I certainly appreciate anyone who takes the time to serve on an HOA board. It is usually a very thankless job and much more work, time and difficult decisions than most would want to endure. On the flip side, it's also what sometimes makes me suspicious of the motivations and approaches by some Board's. I have seen some very interesting (self-serving) things on HOA boards (from wanting to have control of certain community aesthetic standards because of their own personal preferences to pushing for budgets to be spent in areas of their own personal interest rather than trying to think about the community as a whole. Maybe this is another aspect of why I'm happy to defend MVC - some of my own experiences color my view that independent Board members are not always the best "watchdogs" because on both condo Boards and timeshare HOA boards I've seen some of these people step over the line (in my view). At the end of the day though, as you said, there are few willing to raise their hands to do the work.

I also tend to view the best checks and balances in market terms....if things get to a place where I am not happy, I'll vote with my feet/wallet. I admit in the timeshare (and property) world that may be easier said than done. It's not always easy to walk away from a timeshare AND it's very hard if you've purchased direct from MVC and are trying to squeeze value out of a very expensive purchase.

 

[LeslieDet]

Pretty sure I am referred to as the squeaky wheel here - he is referring to louder people.

• The squeaky wheel gets the oil - what I mean by that is that while as owners we all likely want to minimize our annual maintenance fees, I think in most cases the majority would like to retain the "brand name" manager and "brand standards" even if it does result in some extra cost....but, they are in many cases the quiet majority and the louder people who are outraged or want a change, are the ones that are talked about (her on TUG, for example).

Just to be clear - I really like Marriott. They just need a watchdog as we probably all do!

The take away I get from your posts and comments is that you do not grasp how HOAs function nor do you understand the vast components that are required to maintain high quality levels at large resort properties. You also come across as extremely cheap and the type that demands champagne on a beer budget.

Of course no one desires that their MFs increase. But as discussed extensively in this feed, there are significant operating expenses outside the control of management, let alone the additional expenses imposed by Mother Nature. Moreover, you come across as the type who waits until there’s a hole in your roof to get it fixed because you were just so sure you could stretch another year out of it.

What your finance experience hasn’t apparently taught you is that management cannot simply defer everything until tomorrow. Can you imagine the liability for deferring maintenance on an elevator and then having it malfunction, hurting or killing somebody? Or being in the middle of winter and the heating components failing because the useful life was long since past but you wanted to squeeze some more time out of it?

Your insistence that MVC needs a “watchdog” to oversee how it manages defeats the purpose of having the management contract as well as the HOA BOD.

Yes, in your personal residence, no one cares if you refuse to replace your heater or AC when its’ useful life expires. But that’s not how resort properties are managed. And you’re completely ignoring the operational standards that are imposed in order to retain branding. They exist for a reason. It’s not simply a one time test. If brand standards are not maintained, the name can and will be removed. The cost to maintain at set standards is a cost of carrying the brand name. If you don’t want to pay the cost to maintain a higher end brand and are “outraged”, there’s dozens of crappy timeshares in the world you can probably get for almost nothing.

 

[Likes to Travel]

As a current owner at GRC, the 2 things that concern me over this are...
1. I feel it is very important to have a board that is independent. I do feel this Board has done a good job on holding MVC accountable in the past and would continue to do it.
2. Inflation has been bad. Costs have gone way up. I see it in my own business. My insurances etc have all gone up like 25%. By cutting personnel and amenities I feel it hurts the brand. This has led to the letter from MVC threatening to walk away and the Board talking about leaving MVC. I usually convert my weeks to points. If MVC decides to leave GRC or GRC decides to leave MVC then my ability to use points is gone. I do not want that.

So the dilemma-A MVC controlled board that has no oversight and MVC does what they want.. or keep the same board members who haven't kept dues up with inflation and either MVC leaves or the board votes to leave MVC...

 

[SueDonJ]

As a current owner at GRC, the 2 things that concern me over this are...
1. I feel it is very important to have a board that is independent. I do feel this Board has done a good job on holding MVC accountable in the past and would continue to do it.
2. Inflation has been bad. Costs have gone way up. I see it in my own business. My insurances etc have all gone up like 25%. By cutting personnel and amenities I feel it hurts the brand. This has led to the letter from MVC threatening to walk away. I usually convert my weeks to points. If MVC decides to leave GRC or GRC decides to leave MVC then my ability to use points is gone. I do not want that.

So the dilemma-MVC controlled has no oversight and MVC does what they want.. or keep the same board members who haven't keep dues up with inflation and either MVC leaves or the board votes to leave MVC...

The most important takeaway I get from the communications by both the Board and Marriott is that the Board took it upon themselves to underfund billed costs over which neither the Board nor Marriott have control, i.e. the third-party electricity and insurance costs, resulting in the management company having to exercise their contractual right to pay out monies over and above what the Board budgeted. All these years on TUG I don't remember ever hearing about a similarly blatant situation at any resort, not even during the debacle at Aruba Ocean Club.

There are other issues that concern me to a lesser extent (not all in Marriott's favor,) and certainly some may completely disagree with any of my thoughts. But in my opinion, that blatant underfunding of billed costs necessary to keep the resort open and functioning is reason enough - actually more than enough reason - to remove every member of this Board and start fresh with more sane and measured minds in control. If I were an owner that's the message I'd be communicating to both the resort and Marriott corporate, and I would want them to exercise any methods at their disposal to help make it happen.

 

[travelhacker]

The most important takeaway I get from the communications by both the Board and Marriott is that the Board took it upon themselves to underfund billed costs over which neither the Board nor Marriott have control, i.e. the third-party electricity and insurance costs, resulting in the management company having to exercise their contractual right to pay out monies over and above what the Board budgeted. All these years on TUG I don't remember ever hearing about a similarly blatant situation at any resort, not even during the debacle at Aruba Ocean Club.

There are other issues that concern me to a lesser extent (not all in Marriott's favor,) and certainly some may completely disagree with any of my thoughts. But in my opinion, that blatant underfunding of billed costs necessary to keep the resort open and functioning is reason enough - actually more than enough reason - to remove every member of this Board and start fresh with more sane and measured minds in control. If I were an owner that's the message I'd be communicating to both the resort and Marriott corporate, and I would want them to exercise any methods at their disposal to help make it happen.

This is exactly how I feel.

I gave all my votes to the board member that MVW put up for election.

In a lot of ways the board has done a fantastic job (for example, with the labor issue at Newport Coast Villas). I also appreciate their work towards the settlement that was reached with the fractionals that were foreclosed upon. However, the issue with the current board is their inability to distinguish between controllable cost increases and non-controllable cost increases (like insurance and utility increases, and to a lesser extent reserves).

I will say it isn't the whole board that is like this, but there are 3 members including the president that for whatever reason have stuck with the rate of inflation in the San Francisco Bay Area for all budgeting.

 

[Hindsite]

I usually convert my weeks to points.

That could be part of the issue with this resort: The large number of "owners" who elect for club points and are driving to ensure that the maint fee/club points is below the equivalent cost for Trust points.
If "most" owners elect, including the "independent" members of the BoD, then the HOA is stuck trying to find a budgeting solution that retains brand standards a minimum maint fee per club point. There may be too few owners actually using the resort to lobby for cost increases, leaving MVC to balance GSI and brand standards with pressure to keep costs low for club point election purposes.

 

[SueDonJ]

That could be part of the issue with this resort: The large number of "owners" who elect for club points and are driving to ensure that the maint fee/club points is below the equivalent cost for Trust points.
If "most" owners elect, including the "independent" members of the BoD, then the HOA is stuck trying to find a budgeting solution that retains brand standards a minimum maint fee per club point. There may be too few owners actually using the resort to lobby for cost increases, leaving MVC to balance GSI and brand standards with pressure to keep costs low for club point election purposes.

I'm not understanding this, if you want to try to explain it differently?

Using my ownership as the example, I own enrolled Weeks at SurfWatch and Barony Beach which I've routinely elected for Club Points for at least five years now. But I don't pay MF's based on the allotted number of Club Points that those Weeks generate; I pay the same MF's for the Weeks as every other like owners regardless of whether the Weeks are elected. The only time it occurs to me to figure out how my Weeks MF's would compare to the Trust MF's for the same amount of Points, is when the question comes up on TUG.

What am I missing?

 

[Hindsite]

I'm not understanding this, if you want to try to explain it differently?

Using my ownership as the example, I own enrolled Weeks at SurfWatch and Barony Beach which I've elected for Club Points for at least five years now. But I don't pay MF's based on the allotted number of Club Points that those Week generate; I pay the same MF's for the Weeks as every other like owners regardless of whether the Weeks are elected. The only time it occurs to me to figure out how my Weeks MF's would compare to the Trust MF's for the same amount of Points, is when the question comes up on TUG.

What am I missing?

In a similar way to people choosing resorts and unit types to get the best II trading power for the maint fees, there ae people who specifically target weeks to enroll or are enrolled that give a low MF/club point.
From above and other info on TUG it appears that the number of club points you get for a GR ownership is good, compared to some other enrolled ownerships. e.g the rental rate per club point from elected GR club points is less than the maint fees per club point of Trust club points.
That's one of the reasons we've seen a tightening on high volume transfers in to broker accounts of club points. GR owners, and others, have been electing and then "selling" their club points to brokers who then book via Abound and rent out that booking.
Hope that is clearer is not @Dean may be able to be clearer.

 

[TimGolobic]

That could be part of the issue with this resort: The large number of "owners" who elect for club points and are driving to ensure that the maint fee/club points is below the equivalent cost for Trust points.

"Owners" are owners, regardless of their usage selection; no quotes necessary. I understand the rest of your sentiment, but similarly, all owners want costs low, regardless of usage selection, not just points elections.

And the budget doesn't change if 1% or 100% of weeks are elected for points.

 

[bnoble]

all owners want costs low, regardless of usage selection, not just points elections.

But the meaning of "low" may be contextual.

If I own only because it is a cheap points generator, the comparison point is the next cheapest point generator. If I own because I mostly stay there, the comparison point is other costs to stay there.

 

[dioxide45]

And the budget doesn't change if 1% or 100% of weeks are elected for points.

I am not sure that is the case. It seems that housekeeping, front desk and other costs of elected points reservations are passed on to owners via the annual budget. When electing points, it increases the number of checkin/checkout occurances. Thus increasing the staffing needs for things like housekeeping and front desk. It may also increase costs related to Owner Services who take and make the reservations. If most of the intervals are kept as weeks, then it limits the number of checkin/checkout occurrences.

Trust points are different in that the association receives funds from the Trust Association to cover these additional costs.

 

[TimGolobic]

Trust points are different in that the association receives funds from the Trust Association to cover these additional costs.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the GRC Association receives any reimbursement from the Trust for any Abound reservations originating with Trust points (or any other points for that matter). It doesn't appear in any budget as a revenue source. And Housekeeping costs at GRC have always been a tricky issue. MVW pays that, not the Association. And MVW collects a housekeeping fee from owners in two different ways:
1 - An owner (or their guest) using their deeded week pays a one-time Departure Cleaning Fee based on room type. That ranges from $111 for a Studio all the way up to $375 for a 3 BR penthouse (and typically increases each year).
2 - An owner renting their deeded week out through the Marriott Rental Program gets a DAILY deduction from the gross rental amount, before the Marriott commission is applied.
3 - Abound guests (and I think also Interval, but they are typically few) do not pay any cleaning fee. So this does undermine MVW's budget since no collection occurs.

 

[Dean]

That could be part of the issue with this resort: The large number of "owners" who elect for club points and are driving to ensure that the maint fee/club points is below the equivalent cost for Trust points.
If "most" owners elect, including the "independent" members of the BoD, then the HOA is stuck trying to find a budgeting solution that retains brand standards a minimum maint fee per club point. There may be too few owners actually using the resort to lobby for cost increases, leaving MVC to balance GSI and brand standards with pressure to keep costs low for club point election purposes.

This certainly could be a factor. IF an owner is only interested in points they don't care about amenities or upkeep until it affects their points totals (or exchange power where applicable). Whether this is enough of an issue to make any real difference is beyond our knowledge and level of information. I do think this issues is applicable at many resorts but is likely exaggerated due to the setup and apparent high prevalence of owners largely for points and/or exchange. The BOD may have some insight into that issue though.