DVC Point Charts for 2011 - Post chart release discussion begins on Pg 14

[wdrl]

There is really no requirement they do so other than simplicity. They would either account for it with a different formula, or they could simply sell on a certain number of points to keep within parameters. Assuming the same unit types as already on the books, those are the only options that come to mind. They could also make them a different unit type.

I really can't see that DVD would have the option of imposing a different formula at the same resort. All of my findings and DVD's past practices show that there can only be one formula. Selling fewer points won't solve the problem because the number of accommodations would also have to be reduced. And even introducing a different accommodation type won't solve much because, I believe, the 'new' type would have to adhere to the same point-to-size/accommodation as specified by the resort's formula. I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that SSR THV Units, which have about 30,175 points allotted to each, maintain the same ratio as the other SSR accommodation (Gee, thats all I need: Another project researching SSR's points).

 

[Dean]

I really can't see that DVD would have the option of imposing a different formula at the same resort. All of my findings and DVD's past practices show that there can only be one formula. Selling fewer points won't solve the problem because the number of accommodations would also have to be reduced. And even introducing a different accommodation type won't solve much because, I believe, the 'new' type would have to adhere to the same point-to-size/accommodation as specified by the resort's formula. I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that SSR THV Units, which have about 30,175 points allotted to each, maintain the same ratio as the other SSR accommodation (Gee, thats all I need: Another project researching SSR's points).

While I see no need for them to alter the formula if the rooms are the same, I see no legal or POS requirement for them not to. All they have to be is within parameters for total sales to not be oversold.

 

[Shamus]

While I see no need for them to alter the formula if the rooms are the same, I see no legal or POS requirement for them not to. All they have to be is within parameters for total sales to not be oversold.

I tend to agree with Dean here. I understand what wdrl is saying of how DVD has been operating with no changes in declared points for additional units, but as far as I am aware they do this by choice not by any FL law or condo association declaration.

Thanks for all your digging, and a very informative analysis. I am not worthy of asking, but

Without implying it actually happened, or if it did that it was DVD's premeditated intent at AKV; THEORETICALLY, if DVD wanted to add an addition to a resort, an addition that was not originally planned, and the only remaining area on which to build that addition would result in it having a far greater percentage of lesser views than the rest of the resort, what, if anything, could DVD do to address that issue, short of making it a completely different resort?

It seems that assigning, and selling, the same number of points per unit as were used for the original resort would not be "fair". However, if DVD had to adhere to the formula, it seems to me the only option would be to originally classify those new rooms using the same percentage of views as the rest of the existing rooms in the resort, and then later downgrade the classification on many of those new rooms. At the time of that downgrading, the point charts would need to be adjusted, but adjusted in such a way as to keep the total points in the resort the same.

Effectively, having to adhere to the formula would mean the rooms in the unplanned addition would have to be originally assigned more points than they were actually worth, and when they were later downgraded, those extra points would remain in the overall resort total. I know you had stated in a reply to one of my previous posts that my term "over-classification" was not fully correct, but it seems to me the effect would be the same in this theoretical example.

Note: if I understand your analysis of BW correctly, the above did not happen at BW because the SV rooms were in the plan all along.

Thanks again for all your work, and if any, or all, of what I stated above is in error, I would appreciate your explanation of my errors.

I think I understand what you're saying here but I'm not convinced that there would be anything wrong if they did that. I guess it all depends on your point of view.

Let me preference with this: The points are allocated for each unit across the resort based solely on number of each of the room sizes. The is no adjustment made for the units location, view, floor, popular season, preferred day of the week, level of special service, or even specific floor-plan. The points are then distributed amongst the points charts via the different categories they set up (Size, Season, Day, and View) in an attempt to level out demand.

Now – The next question is can DVC even legally add additional unplanned units to a resort?
We know they can cancel proposed ones, but I'm not sure if they can actually add unplanned units.
The only resort where something like this has taken place is the last two units at OKW.
Were the units added in place of the sales center on the original plans or truly an addition?
I am not a lawyer so I can not answer that question, but anyway let's say that legally they can.

Your concern is that these additional units are undesirable to users and that DVC needs to "discount" these units on the points chart and in turn by doing so they are actually further increasing the points required in existing more popular units and that in your opinion it is unfair to the buyer who bought in thinking that those preferred units would only be "X" points.

But remember there are two sides to this. Lets say DVC adds units to BWV and decides that these added rooms have substandard views so DVC puts them in the SV category. Now since the total points for a SV room is below the declared allocated amount, the PV points go up across the board. We have two different original BWV owners. The first is a PV fan and is upset because the required points just went up, but as a SV fan the second owner has more of the "Hard to Reserve" rooms available. So we have one owner unhappy about the addition and the other happy. Or maybe instead DVC decides to raise the SV points across the board. Now who's happy. What if it was PV units DVC added. Do they lower SV or PV. What prohibits them from adding another view category. They could currently create a separate and higher BW view category at BWV and in turn lower PV and/or SV points. Such a move may upset the BW view fan but the PV pool and SV fans would be happy.

Weather or not it is legal for DVC to add additional units and weather or not said additional units legally need to follow the same point allocation table, is unknown. But would such an addition be unfair to existing owners? It depends on your point of view.

 

[Dean]

Now – The next question is can DVC even legally add additional unplanned units to a resort?
We know they can cancel proposed ones, but I'm not sure if they can actually add unplanned units.
The only resort where something like this has taken place is the last two units at OKW.
Were the units added in place of the sales center on the original plans or truly an addition?
I am not a lawyer so I can not answer that question, but anyway let's say that legally they can.

Your concern is that these additional units are undesirable to users and that DVC needs to "discount" these units on the points chart and in turn by doing so they are actually further increasing the points required in existing more popular units and that in your opinion it is unfair to the buyer who bought in thinking that those preferred units would only be "X" points.

But remember there are two sides to this. Lets say DVC adds units to BWV and decides that these added rooms have substandard views so DVC puts them in the SV category. Now since the total points for a SV room is below the declared allocated amount, the PV points go up across the board. We have two different original BWV owners. The first is a PV fan and is upset because the required points just went up, but as a SV fan the second owner has more of the "Hard to Reserve" rooms available. So we have one owner unhappy about the addition and the other happy. Or maybe instead DVC decides to raise the SV points across the board. Now who's happy. What if it was PV units DVC added. Do they lower SV or PV. What prohibits them from adding another view category. They could currently create a separate and higher BW view category at BWV and in turn lower PV and/or SV points. Such a move may upset the BW view fan but the PV pool and SV fans would be happy.

Weather or not it is legal for DVC to add additional units and weather or not said additional units legally need to follow the same point allocation table, is unknown. But would such an addition be unfair to existing owners? It depends on your point of view.

Sure they can add "unplanned" units and points to a resort. Did so at SSR for 2 different types, downsized VB from planned resort. The legal documentation will address the issue that planned portions may not occur or if they do, they may not be part of the club. The very concept of phasing is adding new components in increments. They actually had to change the way they declared the "units" at VB as I understand it due to the fact that once declrared, they becoe part of the resort and club and are out of DVC's control somewhat.

 

[Shamus]

Sure they can add "unplanned" units and points to a resort. Did so at SSR for 2 different types, downsized VB from planned resort. The legal documentation will address the issue that planned portions may not occur or if they do, they may not be part of the club. The very concept of phasing is adding new components in increments. They actually had to change the way they declared the "units" at VB as I understand it due to the fact that once declrared, they becoe part of the resort and club and are out of DVC's control somewhat.

Thank's Dean - I forgot about the THV addition. What was the second one at SSR you mentioned?

 

[Dean]

Thank's Dean - I forgot about the THV addition. What was the second one at SSR you mentioned?

They expanded the size from the first announcedment at least once, I can't answer whether it was already in the plans or something that came completely after. For OKW and BWV I think those later additions were somewhat planned up front.

 

[dismedvc]

But would such an addition be unfair to existing owners? It depends on your point of view.

My point of view is that if DVD had made the addition a totally separate resort, they would have THEORETICALLY classified a higher % of the new units Standard view. However, since it was an addition to an existing resort they had to classify roughly 80% Savanna view and 20% Standard view to stay in formula. That resulted in DVC having more points to sell than if they had "properly" classified the units to start with, and therefore DVD was able to generate more revenue than is "fair".

bookwormde calculated that the original classifications at AKV, followed by the recent downgrading, resulted in DVD benefiting (unfairly?) by over 160,000 points (worth $18 million) compared to what they would have received if they had originally classified the units the way they ended up being classified after the downgrading.

Intentional, legal, ethical, or just trapped by the formula, is another discussion.

I understand why DVD would want one larger resort as opposed to two smaller resorts, and it may have been an honest mistake in assuming the view distribution was going to be the same, but $18 million is $18 million. For any individual member, the effect is probably trivial, and while some members might like the greater % of SV units (they would have liked it even better at a lower cost), it does not seem fair IMO.

Note: I was on the other side of the arguement (that it could not happen) until bookwormde explained how this could theroretically be done in a reply to one of my previous posts. Having read the analysis of the points changes at AKV, my conclusion is that, intentional or not, this is effectively what actually did happen at AKV.

 

[hakepb]

I'm curious, does UY effect the point totals referred to in the formula? i.e is it possible that each unit has the same point totals but they sold fewer UY's in the standard view units?

 

[Dean]

My point of view is that if DVD had made the addition a totally separate resort, they would have THEORETICALLY classified a higher % of the new units Standard view. However, since it was an addition to an existing resort they had to classify roughly 80% Savanna view and 20% Standard view to stay in formula. That resulted in DVC having more points to sell than if they had "properly" classified the units to start with, and therefore DVD was able to generate more revenue than is "fair".

bookwormde calculated that the original classifications at AKV, followed by the recent downgrading, resulted in DVD benefiting (unfairly?) by over 160,000 points (worth $18 million) compared to what they would have received if they had originally classified the units the way they ended up being classified after the downgrading.

Intentional, legal, ethical, or just trapped by the formula, is another discussion. I understand why DVD would want one larger resort as opposed to two smaller resorts, and it may have been an honest mistake in assuming the view distribution was going to be the same, but $18 million is $18 million. For any individual member, the effect is probably trivial, and while some members might like the greater % of SV units (they would have liked it even better at a lower cost), it does not seem fair IMO.

Note: I was on the other side of the arguement (that it could not happen) until bookwormde explained how this could theroretically be done in a reply to one of my previous posts. Having read the analysis of the points changes at AKV, my conclusion is that, intentional or not, this is effectively what actually did happen at AKV.

As long as they don't over sell the resort, it's legal. I would agree, and have said, that if they were going to lower the view of some of the resort, it would have been nice to simply lower the total points. However, that might not be possible depending on where they are in the unit declarations. As I noted, they could simply sell a fraction less total points and accomplish the same goal. Of course they could have reclassified the units in order to balance the reallocation as a goal as well.

 

[wdrl]

I'm curious, does UY effect the point totals referred to in the formula? i.e is it possible that each unit has the same point totals but they sold fewer UY's in the standard view units?

Based on all of my research, I do not believe that UY has any bearing on point allocations. I've tracked UY allotments more out of curiosity than anything else because there doesn't seem to be any correlation between UY and the allocation of points to a Unit. There is no requirement that the UYs be evenly distributed among the eight months. For example, in BLT's case, almost 52% of all points declared to date are in the February UY. In AKV's case, just under 39% of all declared points are in the December UY.

 

[RobDoc]

...
Now – The next question is can DVC even legally add additional unplanned units to a resort?
We know they can cancel proposed ones, but I'm not sure if they can actually add unplanned units.
The only resort where something like this has taken place is the last two units at OKW.
Were the units added in place of the sales center on the original plans or truly an addition?
I am not a lawyer so I can not answer that question, but anyway let's say that legally they can.

...

DVC did not add additional unplanned units at OKW. Buildings 62 - 64 were in the original POS as a future phase for the resort. They were indeed added where the original sales center was located, but were always included in the plans. They appeared as Proposed Phases XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX and XLIX-A Optional Phasing Plan.

XLIX and XLIX-A were the same area and XLIX was the one actually used for Building 62. XLIX-A would have kept the Commodore House but still lose the original parking area.

Certainly the THVs were not included in the original plan for SSR and I believe they could have used a different point structure for those units since there was nothing like them at the resort previously.

 

[wdrl]

While I see no need for them to alter the formula if the rooms are the same, I see no legal or POS requirement for them not to. All they have to be is within parameters for total sales to not be oversold.

NOTE TO MODERATOR: We seemed to have gotten far afield from the original topic of this thread. If you think its appropriate, it might be a good idea to move part of this discussion to a new thread.

I understand what you are saying, and I think you and Shamus are probably right that DVD has more flexibility than I give it credit for. Much of what I think DVD can and cannot do is predicated on what DVD has or has not done in the past. The drawback to my line of thinking is that just because a timeshare developer hasn't done something (like altering the points-to-size/accommodation formula) doesn't necessarily mean that they can't do it in the future.

However, I still have trouble thinking DVD can alter the formula for a resort, and I think the Master Declaration has language that ties its hands in this regard. Both BLT and AKV's Declarations of Condominium contain Exhibit D - Percentage Interest in Common Elements, which states

"Each residential Unit within the Condominium shall have an undivided percentage interest in the Common Elements and Common Surplus and a share of the Common Expenses of the Condominium on an equal fractional basis. This fractional interest is based on the total number of Units and Commercial Units declared as part of the Condominium at any given time. The percentage interest in the Common Elements and Common Surplus and share of the Common Expenses of a given residential Unit declared into the Condominium from time to time shall always equal the total square footage of that residential Unit divided by the total square footage of that residential Unit divided by the total square footage of all Units declared into the Condominium; however, each Commercial Unit declared into the Condominium from time to time will have a percentage interest of .00000001% in the Common Elements and Common Surplus and share of the Common Expenses. As additional phases are added to the Condominium, the respective percentage interests in the Common Elements and Common Surplus and share of the Common Expenses of the Units already declared into the Condominium will be decreased accordingly. " (Emphasis added)

It is key that this clause refers to the square footage of Units. As I read it, this clause means that each Unit's share of the Common elements is based on size, not points. If DVD changed the points formula, then it would create an imbalance in the relative ownership of the common elements.

For example, lets say that a Resort has only one Unit worth 1,000,000 points. Then, a second Unit is added to the Resort, and the second Unit is the same size as the first Unit, but the points formula is altered so that only 500,000 points are allotted to it. The Resort now has 1,500,000 points in two equal sized Units. Exhibit D requires that since each Unit is 50% of the Resort, each Unit owns 50% of the common elements. However, here is a potential problem: The New Unit has only 1/3 of the Resort's total points but owns 1/2 of all common elements.

I believe that the new Unit would have to pay for half of the costs associated with the common elements. However, since there are only 500,000 points in the New Unit, there would have to be different maintenance fee amounts for each Unit.

I don't think DVD could get around the wording in Exhibit D by changing the Master Declaration. Wouldn't that require a vote by all members of the Condominium?

So, I go back to my original premise that once the allocation formula is established for a resort, then DVD cannot increase or decrease the relative points to the Units declared into the Resort. By the way, this premise permits the adding of additional buildings, such as the THV or even a second tower at BLT.

 

[Dean]

I don't think DVD could get around the wording in Exhibit D by changing the Master Declaration. Wouldn't that require a vote by all members of the Condominium?

If it were in the best interest of the membership, no it would not. To my way of thinking they could decrease but not increase without a vote of the memberwship.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Hey guys. Just thought I'd check in. Did you guys get it all worked out yet?

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Hey guys. Just thought I'd check in. Did you guys get it all worked out yet?

They went over my head a while back.

 

[DisneyTarheel]

Our typical Sun-Fri stay at VWL 2Bed during Adventure Season is now costing us an additional 35 points each year compared to when we purchased a few years back (150 to 185). That is almost a 25% increase. This also appears to be almost a 9% jump just from 2010 to 2011.

 

[Muushka]

Hi neighbor (Cary as well as VWL!)

I understand, believe me, I understand.

 

[DisneyTarheel]

Hi neighbor (Cary as well as VWL!)

I understand, believe me, I understand.

We've always done a split stay, and have enjoyed checking out other WDW resorts for the Fri/Sat nights to end our trips. Now that we will have to worry about an extra 35 points/year (we only purchased 150), we will have to adjust with the occassional 1Broom stay or checking out on Thur vs. Fri. This likely will also push us to explore other Orlando area attractions for the split stay, especially if we check out a day early from WDW. One thing I refuse to do, however, is purchase an additional 35 points simply to get back to where we were under the previous allocations.

 

[Muushka]

Except for the UNC affiliation (we are State fans!), we are identical. Right down to the refusal to buy more points!

 

[DisneyTarheel]

Except for the UNC affiliation (we are State fans!), we are identical. Right down to the refusal to buy more points!

Hey, at least we share the fact that our respective teams both stank it up last night. (sigh)