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

[timsi]

Hi Sue, no offense. You shouldn't know me unless you are a GRC owner, and even many of them don't. I have been a GRC owner for 19 years. I own multiple units and am possibly the single largest or second largest individual owner of the property. My personal investment is significant, as is my professional investment. This is not meant to be an advertisement, simply stating my involvement. I have operated HeavenlyVillageCondos.com for nearly as long as being an owner. It is a 3rd party rental service for fellow GRC owners who wanted an alternative to Marriott's program with high commissions and fees. Approximately 30% of the owners use my service and it continues to grow each year. My entire business existence is based on GRC. This is not a hobby; it is my career. I attend nearly all Board meetings in the capacity of an owner but have never been a Board member, nor do I have any desire to be one. Though I know all of them personally and professionally (some use my services) and I have great respect for the tireless work of those who previously served and those currently serving in this unprecedented level of conflict. I also have great respect for the on-site staff, whom I feel don't want to be collateral damage in this battle. They'd rather go about their days achieving guest satisfaction with little drama.

Regarding your comment on "legal tangles", it most concerns me that the Management Company has done so many things that warrant "legal tangles", and what they would have gotten away with had it not been for such a diligent and committed Board. Certainly other properties haven't noticed, and I fear that's what Management counts on. These tangles only originate out of bad behavior, all occurring from one side.

I do know extensively about the lawsuit regarding a former terminated employee. But I'm not willing to share the details. I have read the lawsuit. It was wide-ranging and salacious and even if just half of it was true and gone to trial, it would have been damming to those named along with the Company. None of those principals are still on the property. Either retired, quit, or moved within the company, But it was another settlement that Management expected the HOA to pay, ridiculous.

Aside from the most recently elected member, all of the current Board members have served multiple terms, there are not term limits. Marriott has one seat they control, and the original developer has a permanent seat. As owners, we value the history and institutional knowledge that those repeatedly re-elected officers brings. Marriott wants high turnover to make that historical knowledge go away. And they have tried to un-seat long-time members during elections, once successfully, but not since.

I agree that we have two sides that can be fairly stubborn. But the Board is trying to hold Management accountable and resolve their past improprieties without agreeing to a max increase in costs. Ironically, trying to keep the dues increase lower is also a benefit to Marriott. They own approximately 20% of the units and their costs would skyrocket as well. Our Board is actively trying to save them money.

Considering your in-depth knowledge of the resort's budget, could you please shed some light whether Marriott covers the expenses for additional daily cleaning services for their guests, including those who book through Marriott.com and those with sales tour packages? There appears to be a lack of clarity on whether these supplementary cleaning costs are reimbursed by the management company or if they are distributed among all regular owners.

 

[igopogo]

Considering your in-depth knowledge of the resort's budget, could you please shed some light whether Marriott covers the expenses for additional daily cleaning services for their guests, including those who book through Marriott.com and those with sales tour packages? There appears to be a lack of clarity on whether these supplementary cleaning costs are reimbursed by the management company or if they are distributed among all regular owners.

Cleaning and valet is a little strange at GRC.

Owners and their guests using their ownership pay a once-per-stay cleaning fee depending on their room type, from about $100-$250. Points users and Marriott guests do not pay this fee.
Marriott guests pay for valet. Points users and owners do not pay for valet.

I don't know how the money flows from there. I think we still do not have daily cleaning available.

 

[sparty]

@TimGolobic​

Tim,
Nice to see you here on TUG, I've done points transactions with you for many years. One question, I'm interested in knowing the specific line item in the GRC MF statement MVCI rolled the legal settlement charges for NCV and Desert Springs into? Would you know?

At our MVCI Florida resort I see a legal fee line item in the operating budget for $104,000.00 this year.. In our South Carolina property there is nothing, no line items like legal fees. Makes me wonder why the resorts are operating with different expense line items. I would think it would be a standard line item for each resort,. Unless a resort has very unique legal expenses based on lawsuits/legal costs for that particular resort (or controversially geo/area). Or could such expenses be paid and there is no line item at all, the money is just taken out of the account? I would like to ask our resorts more about how legal expenses are billed to the COA.

 

[dougp26364]

@TimGolobic​

Tim,
Nice to see you here on TUG, I've done points transactions with you for many years. One question, I'm interested in knowing the specific line item in the GRC MF statement MVCI rolled the legal settlement charges for NCV and Desert Springs into? Would you know?

At our MVCI Florida resort I see a legal fee line item in the operating budget for $104,000.00 this year.. In our South Carolina property there is nothing, no line items like legal fees. Makes me wonder why the resorts are operating with different expense line items. I would think it would be a standard line item for each resort,. Unless a resort has very unique legal expenses based on lawsuits/legal costs for that particular resort (or controversially geo/area). Or could such expenses be paid and there is no line item at all, the money is just taken out of the account? I would like to ask our resorts more about how legal expenses are billed to the COA.

More importantly, I’m wondering about the fiduciary responsibility of HOA/BOD members who roll over for Marriott to pay legal settlements or fees at resorts not their own. Now that this potential breach of responsibility is potentially out in the open, wouldn’t that create a legal conundrum for the various HOA/BOD’s that participated? This could get very ugly, very quickly. Not just for mother Marriott but for everyone who has ever served on an HOA/BOD.

 

[LeslieDet]

One of the tamer ones affects owners at all properties in the West Region, though you likely didn't know it. A few years ago there was a labor violation at Newport Coast, something about improper overtime hours. Marriott settled with the government and then had EVERY PROPERTY IN THE WEST REGION CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT even though it was isolated to Newport Coast. The GRC Board fought this. Why should any HOA pay the legal settlement for company mismanagement, let alone every HOA in the same region?

Just FYI - it seems as though there is perhaps some misunderstanding of how labor law violation claims work, especially when claims are filed in a representative capacity. I am not privy to the litigation, but it would be quite normal for a company to settle and resolve the representative labor law violation claims on behalf of any properties subject to CA labor laws, regardless of where the initial employee who made the claim worked. That is why your HOA would be paying a portion of the settlement even though the former employee from Newport Coast who filed the suit did not work at your specific property. There is nothing nefarious about allocation of the settlement among the properties. The allocation could not be random though, it would be required to be based upon wages paid to employees in the categories that were part of the representative litigation and part of the settlement. And if there is a specific dollar amount due to the employee who filed the suit, then yes, that would be borne by the employer (ie Newport Coast property) where that employee worked, but general damages to a representative class and any attorneys fees would be shared among the properties who employed anyone in that class.

 

[LeslieDet]

More importantly, I’m wondering about the fiduciary responsibility of HOA/BOD members who roll over for Marriott to pay legal settlements or fees at resorts not their own. Now that this potential breach of responsibility is potentially out in the open, wouldn’t that create a legal conundrum for the various HOA/BOD’s that participated? This could get very ugly, very quickly. Not just for mother Marriott but for everyone who has ever served on an HOA/BOD.

You need to understand how labor law violations are handled when claims are filed in a representative capacity. The settlements would not be only paying for the single employee from Newport, for example. If it was overtime violations, and the claims were made as a representative capacity, then any and all properties in the state of CA who had employees in those same classes of jobs would be subject to exposure for the same type of labor law violations; thus a settlement would cover all properties. And the cost of that settlement would be properly spread among the impacted locations within the state of California. It would not be a breach of fiduciary duty by any HOA/BOD member; indeed, the management company would be prudent to resolve any and all potential labor law violations with a representative settlement on behalf of all California locations. I'm not privy to those labor law claims, just discussing that they are not personal to only one location where the person was employed, because the claims were apparently filed on behalf of all similarly situated impacted employees.

 

[LeslieDet]

As for the GRC Board working on a budget compromise, they tried and still are trying. But guess which side is not transparent and providing full support and documentation for projected expenses? The GRC Board repeatedly asked about insurance alternatives and getting out of the standard Marriott group policy, which MVW wanted nothing to do with.

Since you are a large owner at GRC, I hope for your sake and that of your fellow owners your HOA/BOD can take a step back and see that it is not reasonable at all to tie maintenance fee increases to the SF CPI, nor it is rational to think that it is improper for the management company to pay the legitimate bills of the property. Saying that they did not have the authority to pay one cent more than the budget is delusional, when those payments are for the operating costs of the property.

And, your comment seems to imply that you support the HOA/BODs desire to find insurance alternatives. Why? If your HOA/BOD believes that there are some insurance bargains out there, they are sadly mistaken. But if they think so, why aren't they doing the research? It seems as though the BOD doesn't realize that they'd most likely need to retain the services of professionals to analyze and compare the insurance policies. Are you willing to pay for that? Whereas, with MVWs clout, it can secure great coverage from highly rated insurance company. One that will survive a disaster and not end up in receivership with the insureds receiving pennies on the dollar for claims made because of a devastating wildfire, for example. There is more to insurance than simply getting the cheapest price out there. Coverage limits, deductibles, replacement cost, code updates, etc etc. I am the president of the HOA for my personal residence in Southern California; operating costs are brutal these days. Our insurance premiums, water bills, electric bills and maintenance costs have all increased dramatically.

IMHO - Your HOA/BOD is not facing the reality of operating in a costly, high fire risk, resort destination if they insist the CPI for SF is the standard. That is malfeasance on their part IMO, not on MVC's part. BTW - Your property manager has no obligation to extend credit to your HOA to pay its bills. It sounds like your HOA/BOD wants to play chicken with MVC. And filing litigation will only cost all of you owners more money. Litigation is expensive. Good luck to you.

 

[WBP]

Remember the GRC product was conceived by the American Ski Corporation when they owned Heavenly, and was known as the Grand Summit Hotel. ASC had several other quarter-share products, my memory is vague, ? Steamboat, the Canyons, Killington, Mount Snow?? That was a long time ago. I have fond memories of the CEO of American Ski Corporation's enthusiasm, Les Otten.

I don't remember the gentleman's name, but, the Project Director of the Heavenly Grand Summit Hotel, went to Marriott Vacation Club in a leadership position, when MVC acquired the Heavenly Grand Summit Hotel. He had a lot of institutional knowledge, and I believe had some role as an architect of ASC's then quarter-share product.

American Skiing selling 85% stake in Tahoe hotel

The parent company of Heavenly Ski Resort is selling its 85 percent stake in the planned Grand Summit Hotel to Marriott Vacation Club International.

www.deseret.com

Then, there was the case of the Director of Sales of GRC, Heavenly, Victoria Vasselin, who was shot and killed by the police. That created an interesting chapter in the history of the GRC, Lake Tahoe.

Death in Yuba City: 'The city that she loved killed her'

It's 15 steps from the bedroom to the front door of the Yuba City home where Victoria Helen Roger-Vasselin lived and where she died when police shot and killed her.

www.appeal-democrat.com

 

[WBP]

Similarly, MVW benefits greatly from their GRC management. Aside from the clearly stated 10% management fee, they also operate a rental program for owners that earns a substantial commission, all revenue from valet parking (none shared with the Association), substantial Abound inventory deposited by GRC owners for others to book in to, shared costs with Timber Lodge which lowers each property's expenses and improves operational efficiencies. Simply, it is a mutually beneficial relationship that MVW appears more willing to (threaten to) blow up.

I agree. I maintain that the relationship between the HOA and Marriott is a win-win, and that a termination of that relationship would constitute a lose-lose for the parties.

 

[Superchief]

It all boils down to what "outpace the value" means. If it means "Does not save over Marriott's prevailing cash rates," I think it is unlikely that fees ever cross that line in general. That's because Marriott is not about to charge less than it costs to run the resort--and probably won't even get close to that. But fees are based on what it costs to run the resort*, plus or minus. If "outpace the value" means "less than I can rent from an owner," well again not many owners are going to rent at a loss for very long before disposing of the week.

Obviously, there could be exceptions to that in e.g. highly seasonal weeks-based destinations, where some of the lowest demand weeks are under water. But, that's exactly the problem that a point system is able to solve. Existing resorts will take a while to get there, because low-value weeks will be surrendered first. But high-value weeks will eventually go back too, just due to friction. Many owners will not want to spend the time and effort selling on an open market, even though it is clearly the right thing to do in dollars-and-cents terms.

But if "outpace the value" means "it's not worth paying Marriott prices when non-Marriott alternatives provide better value," then that's a different story. But it is still just a matter of degree. Many people have long thought that Marriott does not provide value in this sense of the term. Others will continue to believe they do.

-----------------
*: This is partly a matter of faith. But, if you don't believe that this is mostly true, I'd argue that it is long past time to sell.

For me now that I am retired, a bigger question is whether the annual MF's outpace what I can afford to spend for vacations. They have outpaced inflation for several years and our resorts have exceeded 15% increases this year. We will have to start divesting some of our ownership.

 

[timsi]

Since you are a large owner at GRC, I hope for your sake and that of your fellow owners your HOA/BOD can take a step back and see that it is not reasonable at all to tie maintenance fee increases to the SF CPI, nor it is rational to think that it is improper for the management company to pay the legitimate bills of the property. Saying that they did not have the authority to pay one cent more than the budget is delusional, when those payments are for the operating costs of the property.

And, your comment seems to imply that you support the HOA/BODs desire to find insurance alternatives. Why? If your HOA/BOD believes that there are some insurance bargains out there, they are sadly mistaken. But if they think so, why aren't they doing the research? It seems as though the BOD doesn't realize that they'd most likely need to retain the services of professionals to analyze and compare the insurance policies. Are you willing to pay for that? Whereas, with MVWs clout, it can secure great coverage from highly rated insurance company. One that will survive a disaster and not end up in receivership with the insureds receiving pennies on the dollar for claims made because of a devastating wildfire, for example. There is more to insurance than simply getting the cheapest price out there. Coverage limits, deductibles, replacement cost, code updates, etc etc. I am the president of the HOA for my personal residence in Southern California; operating costs are brutal these days. Our insurance premiums, water bills, electric bills and maintenance costs have all increased dramatically.

IMHO - Your HOA/BOD is not facing the reality of operating in a costly, high fire risk, resort destination if they insist the CPI for SF is the standard. That is malfeasance on their part IMO, not on MVC's part. BTW - Your property manager has no obligation to extend credit to your HOA to pay its bills. It sounds like your HOA/BOD wants to play chicken with MVC. And filing litigation will only cost all of you owners more money. Litigation is expensive. Good luck to you.

While acknowledging that the SF CPI may not be a perfect indicator, it still serves a purpose, doesn't it? Marriott seems to consistently reference inflation with maintenance fee increases. It's worth noting that we're discussing projections for 2024. What is the expected inflation rate for the upcoming year? Some voices suggest it could be even lower than 2023, which itself is lower than 2022. Given this, why the significant and seemingly disproportionate increases at Marriott-managed resorts compared to competitors like HGVC?

Insurance premiums at certain Vistana resorts increased significantly upon Marriott assuming management. It raises the question of whether Vistana lacked proper insurance before Marriott's involvement, though this seems doubtful. At the time Marriott did not provide a credible explanation for the substantial increase in insurance costs, and you are not presenting any supporting evidence regarding Marriott's alleged clout with insurance companies. Why shouldn't Marriott explore alternative insurance options and present them to the Board of Directors? Is that not a responsible management practice?

Earlier comments suggest Marriott had to reimburse certain costs to this association after facing considerable resistance. If the BOD achieved success in the past, what suggests that new efforts won't yield similar results? Your remarks imply that the Board of Directors should never question Marriott's actions or, worse, resort to litigation. Could this attitude potentially lead to abuses if management realizes there are never significant consequences to their actions?

Is it not concerning that litigation expenses, even when attributed to the management company's fault if I understand correctly, can be allocated among other properties without any perceived wrongdoing? If the management is never held accountable for its misdeeds and faces no consequences, does this not provide an incentive for them to act carelessly, knowing they will always reap the benefits of management contracts without any downside?

Your statement that Marriott can spend money not approved in the budget is troubling to me. Why have budgets if the manager can simply disregard them and request additional funds after the fact?

 

[dioxide45]

@TimGolobic​

Tim,
Nice to see you here on TUG, I've done points transactions with you for many years. One question, I'm interested in knowing the specific line item in the GRC MF statement MVCI rolled the legal settlement charges for NCV and Desert Springs into? Would you know?

At our MVCI Florida resort I see a legal fee line item in the operating budget for $104,000.00 this year.. In our South Carolina property there is nothing, no line items like legal fees. Makes me wonder why the resorts are operating with different expense line items. I would think it would be a standard line item for each resort,. Unless a resort has very unique legal expenses based on lawsuits/legal costs for that particular resort (or controversially geo/area). Or could such expenses be paid and there is no line item at all, the money is just taken out of the account? I would like to ask our resorts more about how legal expenses are billed to the COA.

I see where MGV is budgeting $200,000 for "legal". I suspect. most resorts would have an attorney on a retainer for issues that come up and to ask questions about HOA related items. I also notice a rather large "deficit recoverty" at MGV. So that means they likely ran a deficit in 2023 that needs to be recouped in 2024 MFs. That was nearly $375,000.

 

[LeslieDet]

While acknowledging that the SF CPI may not be a perfect indicator, it still serves a purpose, doesn't it? Marriott seems to consistently reference inflation with maintenance fee increases. It's worth noting that we're discussing projections for 2024. What is the expected inflation rate for the upcoming year? Some voices suggest it could be even lower than 2023, which itself is lower than 2022. Given this, why the significant and seemingly disproportionate increases at Marriott-managed resorts compared to competitors like HGVC?

Insurance premiums at certain Vistana resorts increased significantly upon Marriott assuming management. It raises the question of whether Vistana lacked proper insurance before Marriott's involvement, though this seems doubtful. At the time Marriott did not provide a credible explanation for the substantial increase in insurance costs, and you are not presenting any supporting evidence regarding Marriott's alleged clout with insurance companies. Why shouldn't Marriott explore alternative insurance options and present them to the Board of Directors? Is that not a responsible management practice?

Earlier comments suggest Marriott had to reimburse certain costs to this association after facing considerable resistance. If the BOD achieved success in the past, what suggests that new efforts won't yield similar results? Your remarks imply that the Board of Directors should never question Marriott's actions or, worse, resort to litigation. Could this attitude potentially lead to abuses if management realizes there are never significant consequences to their actions?

Is it not concerning that litigation expenses, even when attributed to the management company's fault if I understand correctly, can be allocated among other properties without any perceived wrongdoing? If the management is never held accountable for its misdeeds and faces no consequences, does this not provide an incentive for them to act carelessly, knowing they will always reap the benefits of management contracts without any downside?

Your statement that Marriott can spend money not approved in the budget is troubling to me. Why have budgets if the manager can simply disregard them and request additional funds after the fact?

I'm not quite sure why you presume that insurance options weren't looked at by MVW and an analysis done by management as to what was the best policy? If the HOA/BOD thinks that SF CPI is an appropriate inflation adjustment for MFs, then why would their suggested insurance alternatives even be considered credible?

IDK why you would even think that applying a CPI would serve a valid purpose. One of the biggest components of the CPI is housing costs. When the pandemic hit, people moved out of SF. Rents dropped. Other components are food and energy costs. Last time I checked, the operating costs of a timeshare property don't include food or housing. Moreover, the SF CPI isn't adjusted to deal with the energy costs in the mountains. It doesn't include things like the cost of snow removal. You may recall that Tahoe had record snowfall as an example of why costs, even when budgeted, can be exceeded. You are not looking at the operating costs and budget rationally. When an HOA budgets $50k for gas and electric; and the bills total $100k, the property manager can't simply tell the utility provider, "sorry, the budget only says $50k so you have to provide all of our utilities for free when it hits that sum" (and note that in the winter of 2022/23, energy costs in CA increased by something like 300%). I don't understand why that is "troubling to you". Of course the bill has to get paid. And snow needs to be removed. The management did an amazing job keeping the resort open with significant weather related issues.

And, let's not forget that included within the MFs are the bad debts. When fellow co-owners don't pay their MFs, that leaves a shortfall in operating funds. Nowhere does the CPI take that figure into account. Nor does the CPI include things like wages and employee costs and benefits. When a business has employees, there are costs incurred for things like health insurance, retirement, worker's comp insurance, other benefits, plus employer share for FICA. There are many other things on an operating budget that aren't part of any CPI calculation. Reserves are yet another component that comes to mind. And places in destinations that deal with severe weather tend to need higher reserves than other locations. Have you reviewed the proposed budget that the HOA/BOD doesn't agree with? I have not seen any discussion of the line items, only that the president of the HOA wants to keep the increases low and tied to an unrelated CPI. The reality is difficult for some to grasp.

Now, for example, if the budget item was something that could be controlled, like staffing, then the management cuts staff to stay within the budgeted amount. But not sure what troubles you by the management company actually paying the bills to third party providers. I'd be much more troubled by the manager NOT paying the bills. And, let's discuss insurance premiums for a minute. The budget is prepared a year in advance. The premiums may not be known at the time the budget is prepared. Just like you cannot predict if there is going to be a massive wildfire that destroys areas nearby such that insurance premiums go through significant increases. If the premium comes in 15% higher than budgeted, do you expect the management company to simply ignore the bill and pay only what was budgeted? That just isn't how the real world operates. Insurance and utilities are not discretionary expenses. The HOA/BOD members are exceptionally naive if they assume the utility bills should not be paid when the budget is exceeded. Those HOA/BOD members owe all owners a fiduciary duty to do what is best in the interests of ownership; demanding that management not pay the bills incurred by the property is a breach of their fiduciary duty.

I don't know why you put words in my mouth. I never said the HOA should never question management or never resort to litigation. But the fact is that litigation is expensive. The vague references to prior litigation being successful is pure speculation on your part. No one here has provided a true and correct copy of any settlement agreement. Indeed, it is quite common for both sides in a settled dispute to say that the litigation was settled favorably to them. And, believe it or not, prior litigation results do not predict future results. It is extremely naive to say that new litigation will yield similar results when you don't even know the facts. You seem to be forgetting that the management company works for the HOA pursuant to the written agreement. Both sides are obligated to perform their contractual obligations in good faith. That is a given in the law. Yet, you presume that the management company will simply act carelessly or with ill-intent.

As to the litigation being allocated among other properties, no, it is not concerning because this was wage and hour claims governed by the California Labor Code. Representative actions are filed by one aggrieved employee on behalf of all similarly situated employees. What is concerning is that the wage and hours laws were apparently not followed when it came to overtime. I do not know the specifics, nor do I know if there was a change in OT law as enforced by the California Dept of Labor, so I do not know (and you do not know either) if fault for violating those wage and hour laws can be assigned, but it is extremely prudent for the matter to be resolved expeditiously. If not, and if repeated claims for the same violations are reported, then the damages can be trebled. As opposed to saying that management was responsible for all "misdeeds", perhaps management was responsible for saving the properties significant penalties? It goes both ways, and unless you are privy to the litigation, you would not know, just like I do not know. But to automatically assume that allocating the cost to settle a representative wage and hour litigation claim is nefarious, then you don't understand how the labor code works or how it is enforced when the claims are filed in a representative manner.

 

[LeslieDet]

While acknowledging that the SF CPI may not be a perfect indicator, it still serves a purpose, doesn't it?

Specifically to this comment, if this link works, it is an article about the Bay Area inflation as of 11/23/23. It's down because housing costs are lower, food prices are not increasing like they did previously, medical costs, clothing, etc. Note that "electricity delivered by utility companies" like PGE is up 14% in the year. Here is a telling quote:
"Over the one-year period that ended in October, the cost of electricity provided by a utility like PG&E soared at a pace that was an eye-popping five times faster than the overall Bay area inflation rate. And the ominous report on electricity costs arrives just ahead of an anticipated decision this week by state regulators to authorize — yet again — a big increase in PG&E monthly bills for the company’s customers."


So, if the president of the HOA/BOD was being realistic, he'd understand that the budget needs to take into account that utility costs are increasing five times faster than the Bay Area inflation rate, meaning that he should probably be happy to raise the MFs by over 20%. If he paid attention to relevant facts then he'd go back and understand that there was a similar increase in utility costs a year earlier, and that is why there was extra money spent to pay the utility bills.

So, to answer your question -- NO, the SF CPI doesn't serve a purpose when it comes to the MFs.

Bay Area inflation cools off to slowest pace in more than two years​

mercurynews.com
https://www.mercurynews.com › 2023/11/14 › bay-area-...

 

[WBP]

Remember the GRC product was conceived by the American Ski Corporation when they owned Heavenly, and was known as the Grand Summit Hotel. ASC had several other quarter-share products, my memory is vague, ? Steamboat, the Canyons, Killington, Mount Snow?? That was a long time ago. I have fond memories of the CEO of American Ski Corporation's enthusiasm, Les Otten.

I don't remember the gentleman's name, but, the Project Director of the Heavenly Grand Summit Hotel, went to Marriott Vacation Club in a leadership position, when MVC acquired the Heavenly Grand Summit Hotel. He had a lot of institutional knowledge, and I believe had some role as an architect of ASC's then quarter-share product.

American Skiing selling 85% stake in Tahoe hotel

The parent company of Heavenly Ski Resort is selling its 85 percent stake in the planned Grand Summit Hotel to Marriott Vacation Club International.

www.deseret.com

Then, there was the case of the Director of Sales of GRC, Heavenly, Victoria Vasselin, who was shot and killed by the police. That created an interesting chapter in the history of the GRC, Lake Tahoe.

Death in Yuba City: 'The city that she loved killed her'

It's 15 steps from the bedroom to the front door of the Yuba City home where Victoria Helen Roger-Vasselin lived and where she died when police shot and killed her.

www.appeal-democrat.com

I just remembered the Project Director/product architect's name, "Scott Oldakowski."

 

[bizaro86]

Insurance premiums at certain Vistana resorts increased significantly upon Marriott assuming management. It raises the question of whether Vistana lacked proper insurance before Marriott's involvement, though this seems doubtful. At the time Marriott did not provide a credible explanation for the substantial increase in insurance costs, and you are not presenting any supporting evidence regarding Marriott's alleged clout with insurance companies. Why shouldn't Marriott explore alternative insurance options and present them to the Board of Directors? Is that not a responsible management practice?

Yeah, I always thought it was odd that Vistana insurance went up so much when Marriott took over.

Personally, I suspect we started using the Marriott in-house brokerage and paying the related commissions. That, plus a hard market for insurance, could have raised the costs.

See: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ChAWegQIFRAB&usg=AOvVaw0we6MqCmyYlrULkYW0s85n

 

[LeslieDet]

Yeah, I always thought it was odd that Vistana insurance went up so much when Marriott took over.

Personally, I suspect we started using the Marriott in-house brokerage and paying the related commissions. That, plus a hard market for insurance, could have raised the costs.

LOL - it is so much easier to assume MVW did something self-serving as opposed to looking at the natural disasters that hit so hard in 2017 and caused casualty insurance rates to skyrocket thereafter, not to mention the quantity of carriers who withdrew from markets and the quantity of natural disaster that are continuing to hit with more frequency. One thing is certain; casualty insurance premiums are only going to continue to increase. There was just an article earlier this week in the business rags about high rise condos in FL where the HOAs don't know how they are going to pay their premiums that have increased dramatically, in some areas over 500%. I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not an increase due to paying higher commissions.

 

[timsi]

[Moderator Note: This post has been deleted because this TUGger in particular has been warned a number of times in different TUG forums to stop bringing myriad grievances against Marriott into multiple threads, and in this thread specifically, to please try to keep this thread's focus on what is happening at this particular resort. Any questions/complaints about this moderation, feel free to send me a private message or hit the "Report" button on this edit to bring it to the attention of the other mods and admin.] <-- SueDonJ

 

[dougp26364]

I’m gonna need more popcorn

 

[vikingsholm]

[Edited to remove a deleted post.] <--SueDonJ

I don't trust this management very much either, even while I like GRC and the other resorts a lot when I visit, and the flexibility of the DC points system. I'm not in the trenches on this, but everything I hear indicates a lack of transparency that doesn't allow the owners to understand the true costs and situation, and we can guess to whose benefit that accrues.

I think owners, or at least speaking for myself, would accept a somewhat higher fee increase IF WE COULD SEE THE TRUE COSTS AND REVENUES of all these actions that seem to favor Marriott at our expense, and perhaps pretty unfairly in some cases. And in comparison with other large, higher end systems. Then do a principled evaluation of what is reasonable.

I'd go in to more specifics if I had all the information to show breakdowns of how much foreclosed units, parking charges, housekeeping etc. benefit Marriott compared to their costs, but we don't seem to have this (unless the BOD does?). Housekeeping fees after a weeks' stay in particular seem to have gone way up - understandable to some extent with wage inflation, but is the steep increase over a short time fully justified? There are many other questions like this which leave us guessing.

 

[SueDonJ]

I’m gonna need more popcorn

I'm gonna need more Tylenol.

 

[tahoe]

I don't trust this management very much either, even while I like GRC and the other resorts a lot when I visit, and the flexibility of the DC points system. I'm not in the trenches on this, but everything I hear indicates a lack of transparency that doesn't allow the owners to understand the true costs and situation, and we can guess to whose benefit that accrues.

I think owners, or at least speaking for myself, would accept a somewhat higher fee increase IF WE COULD SEE THE TRUE COSTS AND REVENUES of all these actions that seem to favor Marriott at our expense, and perhaps pretty unfairly in some cases. And in comparison with other large, higher end systems. Then do a principled evaluation of what is reasonable.

I'd go in to more specifics if I had all the information to show breakdowns of how much foreclosed units, parking charges, housekeeping etc. benefit Marriott compared to their costs, but we don't seem to have this (unless the BOD does?). Housekeeping fees after a weeks' stay in particular seem to have gone way up - understandable to some extent with wage inflation, but is the steep increase over a short time fully justified? There are many other questions like this which leave us guessing.

It's not GRC, but here's the Timberlodge budget that might help as a proxy, especially for electrical, gas, and insurance costs.

 

[dioxide45]

With several GR owners in this thread, one of them can't post the budget?

 

[Likes to Travel]

I own at GRC as well and as I read through this there are a lot of great points...one that caught my attention but now I can't find it was that MVC owns 20% of GRC...Did I get that right? If so, I don't think MVC would like GRC leaving because they own so much of it...
Just a thought...

 

[SueDonJ]

With several GR owners in this thread, one of them can't post the budget?

For whatever it's worth, this MF's info has been posted in the sticky thread by @igopogo:

Grand Residence Club South Lake Tahoe

1br fractional (13 weeks)
2024
Operating Fee $8332.00 (5.1% increase)
Replacement Reserve $2197.72 (0% increase)
Total $10529.67 (4.0% increase)
(there's some weird rounding)

2023
Operating Fee: $7928.16
Replacement Reserve $2197.72
Total: $10126.85

2br winter (5 weeks)
2024
Operating Fee $1271.25
Replacement Reserve $362.84
Total $1634.09
We just bought this, and we don't have last year info but my understanding is that %increase is the same across the board.