How long should one wait to hear from LEGAL Department regarding Transport issues?

[Johnnie Fedora]

PKS44,

I'm glad you are following up on this, it will be interesting to see the outcome. Keep us updated. It speaks to the curious issue concerning how much of these shared services between WDW and DVC resorts get pawned off on members. Personally, I don't want my dues subsidising anything other than DVC resorts costs. There is a lot of wiggle room here for WDW assign costs to the DVC resorts unfairly. It's all in the accounting. The "Disney can do what ever they want line because you signed a contract" is true when members themselves believe it.

Inappropriately assigned resort costs for services could be one of the reasons for the rate of annual dues increase.

 

[PKS44]

actually -

from the beginning I have made it very clear what I think they should be doing and last year they "said" that they agreed--that is that the costs should be allocated by size-Period--

The costs should be divided by size ----more guests means more assigned cost--fewer guests means less cost---not the mixed up way they do it now with splitting it equally between three different sized resorts than splitting by size--just be consistent and fair by doing it stritctly by size---

I do not recall the exact numbers (I have them but I am not sure where) -- but there are something like 4400 guest keys in the mix of all the resorts: I think they break down something like this--

YC/BC/BCV comprises about 30% of the guest keyss-and should get 30% of the costs which then are split by size such that BCV pays 19% of that or in this case 19% of 30% or 5.7% of the total. (currently about 6.3%)

BW/BWV makes us about 22% of the guests so it should be assigned 22% of the costs and BWV is 54% of that total so it should be assigned about 12% of the total. (not the currently assigned 18% of the total)

SWAN and Dolphin make up about 48% and SHOULD be assigned 48% of the costs. (not the apparently assigned 33% of the total)

We have no idea at this point what deal Disney cut with the S/D...it may be that their occupancy is so much lower than their capacity that the numbers maybe do work out...If so they should be able to tell me that....it would mean their occupancy would be around 70% while the Disney resorts run at 100%...
It still would mean some mild tweaking of the YC/BC/BCV and BW/BWV split--and the amounts to us are small--but if it is so small then it should not be a big deal for them to do it FAIRLY. Don't forget that the first thing that happened when I brought this up the first time was that they did discover an accounting error--actually the first thing they did was tell me I was wrong--then only after I continued pressing the issue did they discover the accounting error---if one error is possible there is no reason to assume the current "discrepancy" may not also be the result of some sort of error in accounting as well....

 

[Chuck S]

Not disagreeing with PSK44 that it should be split by size...but I also see it the other way...Say here are three resorts, one with 1 guest, one with 2 guests and one with 3 guests. Wouldn't it cost just as much to provide bus service for the resort that has one guest as to the resort that has 3 guests? I think this is probably a simplification of Disney's accounting position. Just because fewer guests ride the bus, it does not mean the cost of providing that service is cheaper. And in fact, it is more expensive on a per guest basis.

 

[Doctor P]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think there is a RIGHT answer, and, to keep this on topic, I will be interested in what ultimate response is given. My guess is that there is great latitude available in allocating the costs. Among the complicating factors, however, will be: 1) bus transportation stops are not consistent--sometimes YC/BC is separate, sometimes it is with BW and S/D, and S/D has separate stops for each resort (at least some of the time); 2) Boat stops are allocated differently; 3) Boat route includes theme park to theme park and therefore, by design, includes transportation that is NOT INTENDED to be transportation to and from the resorts but rather between theme parks. Anyway, I will be interested in the ultimate answer.

 

[jctwizzer]

[QUOTE Anyway, I will be interested in the ultimate answer.[/QUOTE]

and I'll be amazed if there is one

 

[Doctor P]

I don't disagree.

 

[PamOKW]

I think questioning the legality of what they are doing puts their responses into a new category. I would not expect any quick replies. I would have thought you would have received a "thank you for your concern. We are looking into it." type response.

 

[Dean]

Obviously there are a number of ways to split this pie. IMO, the best way is to have a basic division based on the number of stops then adjust based on historical usage in some way or another. But I can see anywhere from a straight per stop item to a per usage only approach. The only real question is whether they are reasonably accurate in their application and I believe that is Paul's concern.

 

[CarolMN]

Not disagreeing with PSK44 that it should be split by size...but I also see it the other way...Say here are three resorts, one with 1 guest, one with 2 guests and one with 3 guests. Wouldn't it cost just as much to provide bus service for the resort that has one guest as to the resort that has 3 guests? I think this is probably a simplification of Disney's accounting position. Just because fewer guests ride the bus, it does not mean the cost of providing that service is cheaper. And in fact, it is more expensive on a per guest basis.

Given your example, I would think they would just divide the total costs by the number of stops and charge the resorts by the number of stops they have.

Paul is saying that they are inconsistent - it seems they use your theory and then further break it down by resort size at the individual stops. If they were consistent, they would say that it doesn't matter whether the the BWI has 1 guest and the BWV has 2, the cost is the same. They don't do that. (And it isn't that simple - at some point, the number of guests does make a difference in the number of buses that are required).

Best wishes -



.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm not saying Paul's thoughts are wrong, my point was that there are several ways to figure costs, and Disney's way may be just as "Legal" as Paul's way. For all we know, Disney may be running the whole thing past the FL Atty General for an opinion. If there are several different accounting formulas, all of them deemed legal by the state, there is little that will be changed. Another recourse would be a civil action, but if the state says it is "Legal" and our paperwork appoints (basically) Disney as the "voting body" of DVC, I doubt it will change.

 

[Doctor P]

I absolutely agree, Chuck and you said it much more eloquently than I. I make part of my living doing impact fee calculations for governments, and generally there are literally hundreds of ways to do the calculations. The general standards are ones of reasonableness and consistency with most of these calculations, rather than optimality per se. I suspect that it is the same in this type of calculation.

 

[PKS44]

I absolutely agree, Chuck and you said it much more eloquently than I. I make part of my living doing impact fee calculations for governments, and generally there are literally hundreds of ways to do the calculations. The general standards are ones of reasonableness and consistency with most of these calculations, rather than optimality per se. I suspect that it is the same in this type of calculation.

I am very frustrated by posts like this because it seems to miss my point---I don't think using two different methods could be called consistent--and I don't think asking a smaller resort to equally share the costs for a shared expense reasonable. As Carol said--at some point the fact that there are 64% more guests at one resort has to have some impact on the cost tht is directly attributable to the bigger resort having more guests--that extra cost should not be borne by the smaller resort and my understanding of FLA LAW is that it cannot legally be passed on to timeshare owners if the extra cost is used to supply non-timeshare things. Those more familiar with the BWV attic scenario may be able to clarify this situation...as I understand it the BWV has a room for parties etc that is called the Attic...the upkeep of that room was at one time billed to BWV owners--but it turns out owners do not have right to use the room exclusively --or much at all as I understand it--and they had to take off that money from the budget and repay the BWV budget/owners or they were looking at some sort of legal penalty...again I am neither a lawyer nor completely familiar with this case--just seems to me to be a similar scenario...

All I am looking for is REASONABLENESS and CONSISTENCY --as I and others have said--if it costs the same based on stops then don't charge BWV 54% of the total for the BW/BWV stop---charge 50%--I think that is not reasonable because it means that you would charge the BCV 33% of the cost of the stops over on the YC/BC/BCV side when they are only 19% of the guests...CONSISTENT AND REASONABLE would be to do it the same way all the time that accurately reflects usage and that would be to do it based on size all the time and at every level...more guests need more buses means more cost. Seems consistent and reasonable to me....we can hash it out here--we can see what Disney comes up with--we may someday see what a judge says...only the latter really matters.

Paul

 

[Daitcher]

I am very frustrated by posts like this because it seems to miss my point---I don't think using two different methods could be called consistent--and I don't think asking a smaller resort to equally share the costs for a shared expense reasonable. As Carol said--at some point the fact that there are 64% more guests at one resort has to have some impact on the cost tht is directly attributable to the bigger resort having more guests--that extra cost should not be borne by the smaller resort and my understanding of FLA LAW is that it cannot legally be passed on to timeshare owners if the extra cost is used to supply non-timeshare things. Those more familiar with the BWV attic scenario may be able to clarify this situation...as I understand it the BWV has a room for parties etc that is called the Attic...the upkeep of that room was at one time billed to BWV owners--but it turns out owners do not have right to use the room exclusively --or much at all as I understand it--and they had to take off that money from the budget and repay the BWV budget/owners or they were looking at some sort of legal penalty...again I am neither a lawyer nor completely familiar with this case--just seems to me to be a similar scenario...

All I am looking for is REASONABLENESS and CONSISTENCY --as I and others have said--if it costs the same based on stops then don't charge BWV 54% of the total for the BW/BWV stop---charge 50%--I think that is not reasonable because it means that you would charge the BCV 33% of the cost of the stops over on the YC/BC/BCV side when they are only 19% of the guests...CONSISTENT AND REASONABLE would be to do it the same way all the time that accurately reflects usage and that would be to do it based on size all the time and at every level...more guests need more buses means more cost. Seems consistent and reasonable to me....we can hash it out here--we can see what Disney comes up with--we may someday see what a judge says...only the latter really matters.

Paul

Paul,

This has been debated on here for a while. In the beginning I just felt like "why bother" fighting the system. The more I hear of this the more I'm on your side. The expense should be shared based on percentage of guests at each property. This is certainly reasonable and seems like common sense to me. BCV should not be picking up the majority of the tab for transportation when they have only 19% percent of the guets. Keep up the good work and I believe when push comes to shove you'll hva e won a victory for all BCV owners. This in turn may help owners of other shared resorts. Thanks for doing this.


DAVE

 

[Doctor P]

Paul,

Don't be frustrated. I wasn't saying that was being done was reasonable or consistent (or taking the opposite position). Just saying that is the standard that will likely be applied and interpretation will go from there. But recognize that definitions of reasonableness and consistency will vary. I can't count the number of times I have been asked under oath "is it POSSIBLE that a reasonable person could do it THIS WAY"? And the answer is almost always, yes.

 

[DrTomorrow]

[...] The expense should be shared based on percentage of guests at each property. [...]
DAVE

Will this percentage be figured on Max Occupancy in DVC Resorts?