AKV dues question...cover animals?

[Robo-Daddy 3000]

Oh and I think I mentioned before that there are plans to fully stock a DVC Savannah for the new construction being built..so there will definitely be more animals added. Can't wait to see it when it is completed!

I'm wondering if, when it's finally finished, the new DVC Kidani Village Savannah with new animals will result in a small MF increase?

 

[salmoneous]

Manufacturing gets cheaper with technical innovation - we can make DVD players cheaper than we could five years ago. Technology also can give maintenance issues a longer life - siding may last longer in the future than it does today. However, an hour of a vet's time is only going one direction - and there aren't big productivity gains to be made there

Remember, it's not just the price of stuff you have to worry about - people want *better* stuff. 24" CRT televisions get cheaper to make, but then people want 36" Plasmas. Not only do you have to pay the vet a few more bucks each year, but you start giving animals MRI's.

But, in any case, unless Disney is cooking the books, animal care is a tiny portion of the overall budget. Sure vet bills will go up - as will as feed bills. So will the price of desk clerks and cleaning staff. No reason to expect animal costs as a percentage of the total to skyrocket.

 

[LisaS]

Inflation affects services disproportionally (medical care and education being the two we get regularly beat up over in our economy). Manufacturing gets cheaper with technical innovation - we can make DVD players cheaper than we could five years ago. Technology also can give maintenance issues a longer life - siding may last longer in the future than it does today. However, an hour of a vet's time is only going one direction - and there aren't big productivity gains to be made there - in fact, improvement in service often mean MORE effort and therefore LESS productivity. So there is a reason inflation would impact animal care and feeding more than it will affect other items. That doesn't mean that it will - it depends on other variables.

I agree with your points but still don't see why the costs associated with someone working as an animal caretaker would rise any faster than the costs associated with someone working as a landscaper, Disney transportation worker, lifeguard, front desk staff, security worker, restaurant manager, etc. The vast majority of the animal care staff are not veterinarians. They will be people doing jobs like putting out food, keeping an eye on the animals and daily cleaning and maintenance of the savanna.

Also, in regards to veterinary care, it's not clear exactly what AKV owners will be responsible for. Do all of the animals at AKL/AKV receive an annual physical? I could see that being included as part of the cost of caring for the animals but that cost would be incurred once/year/animal. But what happens if one of the animals at AKL/AKV becomes seriously ill or suffers a serious injury? If an animal at AKL/V gets cancer, will AKV owners be responsible for the costs of surgery and cancer treatment? I somehow don't think that will be our responsibility because we don't own the animals but I don't know that for sure. Assuming that just the routine medical costs are passed on, and given how many owners will be sharing that cost, I don't see it adding a huge sum to the dues.

The cost of animal care is an expense the other DVC resorts do not have, but then again, I expect AKV will have lower landscaping and transportation costs than SSR, will not be paying any boat transportation costs unlike BCV, BWV, OKW, SSR and VWL, will not have the Boardwalk entertainment expenses of BWV, will probably have lower pool expenses than BCV, etc.

 

[crisi]

I agree with your points but still don't see why the costs associated with someone working as an animal caretaker would rise any faster than the costs associated with someone working as a landscaper, Disney transportation worker, lifeguard, front desk staff, security worker, restaurant manager, etc. The vast majority of the animal care staff are not veterinarians. They will be people doing jobs like putting out food, keeping an eye on the animals and daily cleaning and maintenance of the savanna.

Also, in regards to veterinary care, it's not clear exactly what AKV owners will be responsible for. Do all of the animals at AKL/AKV receive an annual physical? I could see that being included as part of the cost of caring for the animals but that cost would be incurred once/year/animal. But what happens if one of the animals at AKL/AKV becomes seriously ill or suffers a serious injury? If an animal at AKL/V gets cancer, will AKV owners be responsible for the costs of surgery and cancer treatment? I somehow don't think that will be our responsibility because we don't own the animals but I don't know that for sure. Assuming that just the routine medical costs are passed on, and given how many owners will be sharing that cost, I don't see it adding a huge sum to the dues.

The cost of animal care is an expense the other DVC resorts do not have, but then again, I expect AKV will have lower landscaping and transportation costs than SSR, will not be paying any boat transportation costs unlike BCV, BWV, OKW, SSR and VWL, will not have the Boardwalk entertainment expenses of BWV, will probably have lower pool expenses than BCV, etc.

It doesn't - all services go up faster than non-services (though professional services do climb faster than non-professional services). AKL just has more "services" attached to their resort. They still have housekeepers and maintenance guys and lifeguards, but they also have vets and animal care staff.

 

[U2FanHfx]

We are considering adding-on at AKV when we visit in October or more SSR. This topic is VERY interesting and contains a lot of good points. To be honest, I didn't even realize how much higher the dues were than SSR until it was pointed out and now has me thinking. Thanks to all the previous posters.

My question is, are the MF's that high right now due to the small amount of owners. What I mean is that once Kidani is completed and the dues are spread out over more owners, do you think they will go down or at least stabilize for a while? I can't see how the animals will cost such a large population of owners so much in increased dues.

Just my two cents, flame suit on!

Regs,

Chad J.

 

[LisaS]

It doesn't - all services go up faster than non-services (though professional services do climb faster than non-professional services). AKL just has more "services" attached to their resort. They still have housekeepers and maintenance guys and lifeguards, but they also have vets and animal care staff.

But possibly/probably fewer lifeguards than BCV, fewer landscapers than SSR and fewer transportation people than the resorts with boat transportation. So while they have additional services relative to other resorts, the costs of some services will be lower than at other resorts. So I don't agree that animal care will cause the dues at AKV to "skyrocket" and that the dues will be "huge" because of the animals. (I'm not attributing those quotes to you, crisi, but these are the terms that have been used in several of the posts about dues at AKV, and are the focus of my responses in this thread.)

I remember before we had specifics on AKV, some people posted that the dues would be very high because of the animals and/or the cost/point would be very high because of the animals and/or the points/night would be very high because of the animals and so far, none of that has been the case. The dues for 2007 are $4.62, the lowest dues of all of the hotel-based DVC resorts. So is Disney sucking us in with artificially low dues by subsidizing the costs to a greater degree than usual until all points are sold? I think that would be a very poor business strategy since once that became known, it would result in a lack of trust when future resorts come on the market.

 

[salmoneous]

My question is, are the MF's that high right now due to the small amount of owners. What I mean is that once Kidani is completed and the dues are spread out over more owners, do you think they will go down or at least stabilize for a while?

Historically, there is small window in the first couple years when MF's are flat or grow slower than at other resorts. So I wouldn't be surprised to see the gap between AKV and SSR narrow a tiny bit, but I think AKV will always be higher.

 

[crisi]

But possibly/probably fewer lifeguards than BCV, fewer landscapers than SSR and fewer transportation people than the resorts with boat transportation. So while they have additional services relative to other resorts, the costs of some services will be lower than at other resorts. So I don't agree that animal care will cause the dues at AKV to "skyrocket" and that the dues will be "huge" because of the animals. (I'm not attributing those quotes to you, crisi, but these are the terms that have been used in several of the posts about dues at AKV, and are the focus of my responses in this thread.)

I remember before we had specifics on AKV, some people posted that the dues would be very high because of the animals and/or the cost/point would be very high because of the animals and/or the points/night would be very high because of the animals and so far, none of that has been the case. The dues for 2007 are $4.62, the lowest dues of all of the hotel-based DVC resorts. So is Disney sucking us in with artificially low dues by subsidizing the costs to a greater degree than usual until all points are sold? I think that would be a very poor business strategy since once that became known, it would result in a lack of trust when future resorts come on the market.

Nor am I saying they WILL skyrocket, just pointing out that inflation does not impact all costs equally and some costs are more likely to go up faster than other costs. In other words, the assumption that there is "no reason" dues would be different is wrong, there are reasons dues may increase faster. I think that the overall proportion of animal care costs to the total costs of the resort will mean dues increases will be reasonable - but I wouldn't be surprised if VAKL goes up a small percentage more than the other resorts each year. Compounded, that could be significant over the contract life.

I'm not sure that DVC can charge dues for a savanna not yet built, so I'm not sure that it would be a "bad business strategy" as opposed to "they have to charge what it costs now, and they have to charge what it costs later." Though if they anticipate higher dues upon completion of the new savanna it would make sense to tell new purchasers that to avoid dissatisfaction.

 

[CarolMN]

I would think the dues would be on higher side compared other resorts but that should be expected as this is the only resort with live Animals outside most windows. In the same respect BWV has higher dues to maintain the BW and all that is on it. I doubt the dues increases will be out of line as if people see this they may consider buying a resort like CV where disney could pass along some of the monorail costs once it is complete. With any of these however I would expect to pay for the unique offering.

Dues for BWV owners do NOT include maintenance of the Boardwalk area. If that were true, owners would also be entitled to some portion of the revenue generated from that area - and there is no budget line for that! The Boardwalk entrainment / retail area belongs to Disney not DVC.

BWV dues are higher than some of the others due to the hotel services / amenities not present in the condo only resorts. It also absorbs a larger percentage of the shared boat & bus transportation (than the BCV) because of the number of units the BWV has compared to the BWI.

 

[LisaS]

Dues for BWV owners do NOT include maintenance of the Boardwalk area. If that were true, owners would also be entitled to some portion of the revenue generated from that area - and there is no budget line for that! The Boardwalk entrainment / retail area belongs to Disney not DVC.

Thanks for that info. Since there is no admission fee to the Boardwalk area, I figured at least some portion of the cost of the magicians, musicians, etc. was paid by the BWI/BWV (and therefore factored into the room rates there and the dues to BWV owners). I never imagined that any of the entertainment at WDW might actually be free!

 

[fwong]

My point is that if AKL does have occupancy problems and if, as some people have suggested, the cost of caring for the animals is a significant expense, then how has Disney justified keeping AKL open at all? I think they would have had to conclude it was a failed experiment and would have turned the resort into something else, something without all those "expensive" animals. The fact that AKL is still in business indicates to me that the cost of caring for the animals is not an overwhelming burden.

Disney Institute was a failed experiment - and that became Saratoga Springs Resort, Right?

There is evidence of another failed experiment...we now see that Disney is turning a completed and open resort into into something else...the AKV DVC Resort. It can't be cheap to re-engineer entire floors from a hotel to DVC condos. And even worse, AKL is mostly shut-down right now due to the disruption caused by construction for the past 2 months.

http://www.mousesavers.com/aklclosure.html

IMHO - If AKL was running smoothly and profitable as-is...Disney never would have touched it...Disney probably decided they needed the steady / solid cash-flow of DVC membership year-round....compared to the ups-and-downs of hotel bookings throughout the year...maybe it was needed to cover the Savannah? Maybe the DVC model was the best model to support amenities like the Savannah? Only disney knows...

 

[pilferk]

Disney Institute was a failed experiment - and that became Saratoga Springs Resort, Right?

There is evidence of another failed experiment...we now see that Disney is turning a completed and open resort into into something else...the AKV DVC Resort. It can't be cheap to re-engineer entire floors from a hotel to DVC condos. And even worse, AKL is mostly shut-down right now due to the disruption caused by construction for the past 2 months.

http://www.mousesavers.com/aklclosure.html

IMHO - If AKL was running smoothly and profitable as-is...Disney never would have touched it...Disney probably decided they needed the steady / solid cash-flow of DVC membership year-round....compared to the ups-and-downs of hotel bookings throughout the year...maybe it was needed to cover the Savannah? Maybe the DVC model was the best model to support amenities like the Savannah? Only disney knows...

....maybe SSR is almost sold out, and this was a way to give DVC inventory to sell while a new building was being built?

You're right...only disney knows for sure. I'm sure that AKL's occupancy "issues" helped make that decision, too. But I'd be loathe to lay the reasoning ENTIRELY at the feet of low occupancy. It was likely a number of factors, including strain on available infrastructure, ability for conversion, availability, occupancy, SSR inventory, things concerning CRV (which looks like it was originally SUPPOSED to be "first"), etc.

 

[MichelleB]

If you follow the thinking that they're removing regular room inventory and replacing it with DVC inventory as a result of a failed location, then that theory would also need to be applied to other locations where the same thing is happening -- ie.contemporary (rumored) villas. They tore down a whole wing to build more DVC at CRV (again providing that's what the new site is going to be).

My take is that DVC is doing so well that they want to offer more inventory at more locations. We pay money up front and pay yearly dues along with the fact that we are the group that tends to visit more often.

 

[LisaS]

Disney Institute was a failed experiment - and that became Saratoga Springs Resort, Right?

There is evidence of another failed experiment...we now see that Disney is turning a completed and open resort into into something else...the AKV DVC Resort. It can't be cheap to re-engineer entire floors from a hotel to DVC condos. And even worse, AKL is mostly shut-down right now due to the disruption caused by construction for the past 2 months.

http://www.mousesavers.com/aklclosure.html

IMHO - If AKL was running smoothly and profitable as-is...Disney never would have touched it...Disney probably decided they needed the steady / solid cash-flow of DVC membership year-round....compared to the ups-and-downs of hotel bookings throughout the year...maybe it was needed to cover the Savannah? Maybe the DVC model was the best model to support amenities like the Savannah? Only disney knows...

I wouldn't be surprised if the "deluxe" rooms (5th and 6th floors) at AKL were a problem -- the room rate is much higher and the only added features that I can recall are that they are 40 sq ft larger, have a day bed, and have a magnifying mirror next to the sink. They were used by concierge guests and were great for families of 5 but I wouldn't be surprised if there were still a lot of "deluxe" rooms unoccupied on a regular basis.

 

[fwong]

If you follow the thinking that they're removing regular room inventory and replacing it with DVC inventory as a result of a failed location, then that theory would also need to be applied to other locations where the same thing is happening -- ie.contemporary (rumored) villas. They tore down a whole wing to build more DVC at CRV (again providing that's what the new site is going to be).

continuing the rumor just for the sake of discussion...one big difference between Contemporary and AKL...

Contemporary has been open 35+ years! And the hotel has been currently under renovation for the past 2 years anyways. I don't consider renovating after 35 years a "failure".

Animal Kingdom is undergoing modifications after only 5 years...don't you think that's too soon? Extrapolating AK rooms against the lifespan of Contemporary - AK rooms should have had another 25-30 years left in them before needed renovation. So I do still consider the need to rebuild 130+ rooms after just 5 years a "failure" or at least very very bad planning.

Also - Contemporary was built 2 decades before DVC even existed...so it wasn't an option. Animal Kingdom on the other doesn't have that excuse. If they thought DVC was a better choice for AKL, they could've built it into AKL from the start. And avoided the wasted costs of reconstruction and last-minute displacement of all guests for 2 months.