NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[DebbieB]

In fact, I'd be interested in seeing what the difference in the owner share of maintenance of the parking lot at BWV and other resorts with ample parking (such as BLT or AKV). I'm betting because the parking lot at BWV is small in comparison, the share of dues for parking maintenance there is smaller in relation to the other resorts. If this is the case, then I would think the owners at BWV would be in favor of increasing the parking budget to be comparable to the other resorts and either increase the parking availability or sign a contract with a vendor to provide valet services again.

The issue at BWV is that people other than hotel guests use the parking, not the size of the lot. There are 3 lots. People going to boardwalk restaurants or shops, people going to Epcot, cm's working there are using it. The members should not have to pay to increase the parking spaces or provide valet services. There should be a gated parking area reserved for hotel guests. During food & wine, they put a guard in one section to check parking permits and only allow hotel guests in that area. That guard was not there last weekend. If parking spaces run out, people other than hotel guests should be forced to pay for valet or park in the overflow across the street and walk.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

My issue is not about Valet parking per se, it is about the availability of parking for BWV owners. There should be space provided for DVC members staying at the resort, whether it's a separate parking area, or different parking areas for visitors. No, owners should not be footing the bill for additional parking for visitors. If the change in Valet parking is now creating this problem for owners, DVD has a responsibility to correct it.

Sorry to be a contrarian here, but I don't understand what all the frustration is about the loss of free valet parking..... As DVC owners we should be familiar with the fact that nothing we get from DVC is free (especially when we are about to get a particularly big bill to remind us of this fact every year).

Of course, it's always nice when Disney negotiates on our behalf to provide services and perks to us free of charge. But as we know, many of them are of course self serving to Disney (Magical Express, access to the dining plan, free internet, etc)... IE, give us something free that will likely raise revenues elsewhere. But just like any contracted service the Board of Directors establishes for each of our resorts... They all have expiration dates and subject to change and renegotiation when the deal is up.

In fact, I am floored that at the annual meeting there was not a motion by Boardwalk owners (arguable the one DVC resort that really needs valet parking) to ask the board to negotiate a contract for valet parking at the resorts, find out what it would cost in dues to the members, and determine if it's in the best interest for all members to pay for the perk based on actual utilization. The board can gather the information and present something to the owners to vote on. Yes, DVD controls the voting representatives but they still must do what is in the best interest of the majority of the owners.

At the end of the day, if we members need a service to be provided.... We are going to pay for it... It is not Disney we need to worry about here, it's all of us as members who we must convince of the need... Because a "perk” one member may find desirable, may not be desirable to another member. The Board of Directors of each resort has to balance the services offers to us an whether there is a real need to burden members with additional dues for "perks". Heck, I garuntee that if there is some service we as members want Disney to provide bad enough, and we agree to pay for it via dues... Disney would jump at the chance to offer the service... It's garunteed revenue to them. They are virtually assured of having revenue to staff and support the operations of the resorts and DVD itself as long as our condominimums continue to exist. Case in point... The Saratoga Spring Pool renovation... construction to be completely funded by the owners of SSR.

I personally have a hard time myself deciding what I feel would be best for the Boardwalk Resort as to whether members should pay for Valet through dues, or via pay per use. I can see the arguments either way.... Valet is necessary there and a bulk contract would certainly be more economical for all the owners versus the pay per use model. But why should members who don’t have a vehicle pay for it. Of course, we pay (and set aside reserves) for the maintenance of the parking lots at the DVC resorts, and I hardly hear complaints from members who say they don't want to pay for this "resort amenity" they do not use.

In fact, I'd be interested in seeing what the difference in the owner share of maintenance of the parking lot at BWV and other resorts with ample parking (such as BLT or AKV). I'm betting because the parking lot at BWV is small in comparison, the share of dues for parking maintenance there is smaller in relation to the other resorts. If this is the case, then I would think the owners at BWV would be in favor of increasing the parking budget to be comparable to the other resorts and either increase the parking availability or sign a contract with a vendor to provide valet services again.

 

[Chuck S]

My issue is not about Valet parking per se, it is about the availability of parking for BWV owners. There should be space provided for DVC members staying at the resort, whether it's a separate parking area, or different parking areas for visitors. No, owners should not be footing the bill for additional parking for visitors. If the change in Valet parking is now creating this problem for owners, DVD has a responsibility to correct it.

I agree, the loss of the free valet parking is a seperate issue from not having enough self-park slots for registered guests. Although the lack of adequate self parking has become more critical with the loss of the valet perk.

Honestly, if I were a BWV or BWI guest and were forced to pay for valet because non-resort guests were filling the lots, I'd be writing letters or emails.

The guard shack could easily require all registered guest with key cards to use the automated gate, and then manually check arriving guests that have not yet checked in. Everyone else could be referred to the overflow lot.

During busy seasons, ambulatory guests with ADRs or who are visiting the entertainment/dining venues without being BWV/BWI guests, IMO, should be the ones paying for valet or parking in the auxiliary lot behind Hess.

 

[crisi]

I agree, the loss of the free valet parking is a seperate issue from not having enough self-park slots for registered guests. Although the lack of adequate self parking has become more critical with the loss of the valet perk.

Honestly, if I were a BWV or BWI guest and were forced to pay for valet because non-resort guests were filling the lots, I'd be writing letters or emails.

The guard shack could easily require all registered guest with key cards to use the automated gate, and then manually check arriving guests that have not yet checked in. Everyone else could be referred to the overflow lot.

During busy seasons, ambulatory guests with ADRs or who are visiting the entertainment/dining venues without being BWV/BWI guests, IMO, should be the ones paying for valet or parking in the auxiliary lot behind Hess.

Yep. And while I completely believe that the problem has gotten worse, this has ALWAYS been an issue at BWV - which is a resort that needs to start a "validate, stay or PAY" policy - even over behind Hess. Too many people visit the Boardwalk for the Epcot entrance, or easy entertainment - and fill up the lots.

(Contemporary seems to be the other resort in NEED of better parking monitoring. Too easy to walk to the MK and still make it back in the three hour window.)

 

[ArtieMcD]

No, owners should not be footing the bill for additional parking for visitors.

The parking lot is a shared lot, and BWV owners are not paying for the visitors to park there... The cost of the maintenance of the lot is shared between the owners and Disney based on how the lot is used by the different parties (IE resort use, DVC user, and commercial tenant use). Now if Disney is not properly balancing the costs of maintaining the lots and miscalculating the useage percentages between DVC and non-DVC use, thats one thing... But if now all of a sudden the DVC members need more parking avaliability because the resort association chose not to renew thier bulk valet parking agreement... then we should expect to pay a larger share for the maintenance and use of the parking lots due to the expanded use by DVC members.

If the change in Valet parking is now creating this problem for owners, DVD has a responsibility to correct it.

Agreed, and the expense for solving the problem will be borne by the owners as always... This was a problem caused by our own condo association (Which we are members of) and thus our responsibilty (via DVD as our representative) to fix.

My issue is not about Valet parking per se, it is about the availability of parking for BWV owners. There should be space provided for DVC members staying at the resort, whether it's a separate parking area, or different parking areas for visitors.

Agreed, this is probabaly the best solution here... Set asside some additional self parking areas for resort guests. Maybe shrink the size of the valet lot since the use of the Valet service is dropping. Then recalculate the percentage use of the lots, and expense each party accordingly.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

There is no lack of parking for DVC guests and Inn guests. The visitors parking are creating the problem. No, this is not an issue for BWV or BWI to financially provide addtional parking. It is the responsabilities of the resorts to make available parking for their guests with the spaces already deemed for them. Proper enforcement would solve this problem. Any additional costs should be put on guests visiting( cabs, valet parking, etc.) and this is what will happen once enough complaints are made. Enforcement will solve the problem , not increasing our dues to create more parking for visitors.Somehow I get the feeling you are not a BWV owner!

The parking lot is a shared lot, and BWV owners are not paying for the visitors to park there... The cost of the maintenance of the lot is shared between the owners and Disney based on how the lot is used by the different parties (IE resort use, DVC user, and commercial tenant use). Now if Disney is not properly balancing the costs of maintaining the lots and miscalculating the useage percentages between DVC and non-DVC use, thats one thing... But if now all of a sudden the DVC members need more parking avaliability because the resort association chose not to renew thier bulk valet parking agreement... then we should expect to pay a larger share for the maintenance and use of the parking lots due to the expanded use by DVC members.



Agreed, and the expense for solving the problem will be borne by the owners as always... This was a problem caused by our own condo association (Which we are members of) and thus our responsibilty (via DVD as our representative) to fix.



Agreed, this is probabaly the best solution here... Set asside some additional self parking areas for resort guests. Maybe shrink the size of the valet lot since the use of the Valet service is dropping. Then recalculate the percentage use of the lots, and expense each party accordingly.

 

[Deb & Bill]

.... Enforcement will solve the problem , not increasing our dues to create more parking for visitors....

And we all know how Disney feels about enforcment. Only when it doesn't inconvenience a "possibly" paying guest. It's how they reduce complaints.

But in the case of BW parking, they need to come up with a way to make sure the guests at the resort have a parking place when they need it.

 

[DebbieB]

The parking lot is a shared lot, and BWV owners are not paying for the visitors to park there... The cost of the maintenance of the lot is shared between the owners and Disney based on how the lot is used by the different parties (IE resort use, DVC user, and commercial tenant use). Now if Disney is not properly balancing the costs of maintaining the lots and miscalculating the useage percentages between DVC and non-DVC use, thats one thing... But if now all of a sudden the DVC members need more parking avaliability because the resort association chose not to renew thier bulk valet parking agreement... then we should expect to pay a larger share for the maintenance and use of the parking lots due to the expanded use by DVC members.

It's not all of then sudden. Parking on the weekends has been an issue at BWV since I first stayed there in 2000. Last week it was fine during the week, so the issue is not people staying at the resort (both the villas and inn were full last week), it's people visiting on the weekends. They just need to find a way to make sure hotel guests have spaces. If members have to contribute to the installation of a key card gate to restricted hotel guest parking, I would be in favor of that. How much could it cost?

 

[Brian Noble]

And we all know how Disney feels about enforcment. Only when it doesn't inconvenience a "possibly" paying guest. It's how they reduce complaints.

Exactly so. The first page of the Disney Guest Services Playbook says: "Don't say 'no' unless you have to."

The solution to this is trivial, though:

needs to start a "validate, stay or PAY" policy

The surface lots at Disneyland/DTD do this, and it works surprisingly well.

 

[ArtieMcD]

There is no lack of parking for DVC guests and Inn guests. ... Any additional costs should be put on guests visiting

Correct... But DVC members also don't pay for the entire parking lot either. The DVC members have no right to expect to have 100% of the lot for them (if it could be filled up entirely by resort guests). Nor do DVC members have any right to expect priority over the use of the lot by the commercial tenants (who also pay for their share of the lot).

Somehow I get the feeling you are not a BWV owner!

Your right, I don't own at BWV... However I own at other resorts that also have parking lots which are shared between DVC and commercial tenants.... And I know we pay for those parking lots based on our use of them as well as the security gate. No reason to expect a BWV owner not to have the same responsibility/expectations.

It is the responsibilities of the resorts to make available parking for their guests with the spaces already deemed for them.

The problem is, there is not a single person on this thread that knows the exact percentage of the maintenance cost of the lots are borne by the DVC resort nor the actual usage percentage of the lots based on parking patterns. So everyone is just speculating here. But let’s say for example, DVC is paying for 25% of the costs, then DVC members have no right to expect to have more than 25% of the spaces available to them.

What we can postulate is, now that DVC members can no longer valet park for free there is now going to be an increased demand by DVC members on the self parking section of the lot. If this increased demand is higher than the DVC owners are paying for their share of the lot, then the owners should expect to see an increase in maintenance fees for DVCs expanded use of the shared amenity.





Now I agree that if the case can be made that some of the parking is consumed by those simply taking advantage of the lot for free parking for the parks and not consuming any services at the Boardwalk. Then yes we should expect Disney security to step up enforcement since these vehicles aren't representing a unit that is subsidizing the expenses of the parking lot. However we should remember, one perk Disney allows for us owners is the right to park at the theme parks for free in return. If we really wanted to become aggressive about the parking situation at Disney and only allow people to park in areas where they specifically paid for, well what is the natural conclusion if we go in this direction?

Have we really come to the point where we have to flag off 25% of the parking lot (our whatever the correct percentage is) and police it to only allow DVC cars in there. Is this really in the owners best interest???

 

[ArtieMcD]

They just need to find a way to make sure hotel guests have spaces. If members have to contribute to the installation of a key card gate to restricted hotel guest parking, I would be in favor of that. How much could it cost?

I agree, this would solve the problem. However one inconvinience I can see in this situation is what if a DVC member has a guest arriving by car to visit them? How would they access the part of the lot set asside for DVC use when they arrive?

 

[Chuck S]

However we should remember, one perk Disney allows for us owners is the right to park at the theme parks for free in return. If we really wanted to become aggressive about the parking situation at Disney and only allow people to park in areas where they specifically paid for, well what is the natural conclusion if we go in this direction?

Actually, theme park parking is not a DVC perk, it is an onsite perk, available to all onsite guests, including DVC. I would expect to be treated by Disney as any other onsite guest, especially since their own cash rentals of DVC villas includes this perk.

Nor has anyone here proposed a DVC ONLY lot, only that the closest parking area be available to DVC and cash resort guests.

 

[DebbieB]

Correct... But DVC members also don't pay for the entire parking lot either. The DVC members have no right to expect to have 100% of the lot for them (if it could be filled up entirely by resort guests). Nor do DVC members have any right to expect priority over the use of the lot by the commercial tenants (who also pay for their share of the lot).

I don't expect a DVC only lot. I'm suggesting a Boardwalk Inn/Boardwalk Villa guest parking section (not the entire lot). During Food & Wine they segregate the one lot for hotel guests only on weekends and have a guard checking parking permits. It might be cheaper installing a gate rather than having to employ a guard. If it's not a crowded time, they could just leave the gate up and allow everyone to park.

What we can postulate is, now that DVC members can no longer valet park for free there is now going to be an increased demand by DVC members on the self parking section of the lot. If this increased demand is higher than the DVC owners are paying for their share of the lot, then the owners should expect to see an increase in maintenance fees for DVCs expanded use of the shared amenity.

I really don't think alot of members valet parked for their entire stay in the past. Tip money adds up. I usually only used it for check-in and check-out. At check-in, it was nice to just get out of the car, get the luggage and go right into the lobby. I put it in valet the night before check-out so that we could bring the luggage down and put it right in the car. The rest of the time I self-parked unless I could not find a space or if it was raining heavy. It would be interesting to put up a poll, but I don't think that would be allowed since this is the only thread allowed for valet parking.

I agree, this would solve the problem. However one inconvinience I can see in this situation is what if a DVC member has a guest arriving by car to visit them? How would they access the part of the lot set asside for DVC use when they arrive?

They are not a registered guest, they should park in the public section.

 

[Chilbert]

I just got back to BWV and the parking is extremely scarce, probably due to the lack of a guard at the Self Parking gate.

I thought one way to curtail misuse of the lot would be to put a keycard activated gate at the entrance and exit of the lot. If you don't have a valid keycard - you can't get in. If desired, management could also use this system to monitor DVC vs. cash guests in determining apportionment of maintenance costs.

 

[ArtieMcD]

Nor has anyone here proposed a DVC ONLY lot, only that the closest parking area be available to DVC and cash resort guests.

But this is the problem, your assuming that a DVC resort owner is entitled to the closest parking. The only thing we are entitled to is what our condo docs specifically state.... Does the BWV condo docs specifically state that certain spots on the lot are owned by DVC???? Or is it written that the parking lot is shared and all the commercial elements have an easment over the parking lot like it is for every other resort. If is not specifially declared that BWV owns X spaces, or the closest parking, then there can be no such expectation. If it's a shared lot, it's first come first served.... For everyone entitled to be there... Period...

 

[ArtieMcD]

They are not a registered guest, they should park in the public section.

As a DVC owner, we are entitled to have guest visit us when staying at our property. And the expenses on the wear and tear on the parking lot and spaces for these guest should be bourne by the association. Of course the assocation can set a rule, and only allow X number of parking spaces per unit based on the unit size (just like a real condo development can assign parking spaces per unit). But this is not the way the documents are writen today.

 

[ArtieMcD]

Actually, theme park parking is not a DVC perk, it is an onsite perk, available to all onsite guests, including DVC.

Sure... for now... This can change at any time without notice.

I would expect to be treated by Disney as any other onsite guest, especially since their own cash rentals of DVC villas includes this perk.

I guess this is where we will disagree. I "expect" to recieve the benefits that are described in our condo documents as we agreed to when signing and accepting the deed to the condominium. I "enjoy" any additional benefits that Disney offers us as perks, but will not cry too much if we lose these "free" benefits which were really gifts to us during the period they last.

Because of this, I'm ok with the fact we have to share our resort ameneties with nearby tenants. Becasue 1... I often partake in such nearby activities which is one of the reasons I bought into the resorts I did, and 2.... By allowing our DVC lots to be shared gives us the best argument for Disney to allow us to share thier lots in return. Remember any wall one erects (physically or virtually) has the effect of blocking people on both sides.

 

[DVCPAT]

As a DVC owner, we are entitled to have guest visit us when staying at our property. And the expenses on the wear and tear on the parking lot and spaces for these guest should be bourne by the association.

I think you might have a solution in search of a problem. Are you sure you want to monitor DVC verses resort guest wear and tear on every aspect of resort use? Disney would have to install monitoring devices and pay someone to sort the data. The list could include transportation, pool use, common area bathrooms, etc…I think Disney has a simpler formula using the number of DVC rooms verses resort rooms.

 

[ArtieMcD]

I think you might have a solution in search of a problem. Are you sure you want to monitor DVC verses resort guest wear and tear on every aspect of resort use? Disney would have to install monitoring devices and pay someone to sort the data. The list could include transportation, pool use, common area bathrooms, etc…I think Disney has a simpler formula using the number of DVC rooms verses resort rooms.

Right, I don't want to see it come to this. I simply point it out since there are some who believe the BWV parking lot is for the exclusive use of the BWV resort or somehow grants DVC owners preferred parking... It's not... It's a shared resource and if we owners start making a fuss and demand more guaranteed parking... That simple formula Disney uses to allocate expenses will be reviewed, and drive up the cost of the dues.

That’s the predicament for BWV owners right now. Get more dedicate parking (and pay for it), negotiate a new bulk valet agreement, or leave the status quo and let those who wish to Valet pay for it on a pay per use situation.


What is clear though is the days of free Valet are over. This hurts BWV more than other resorts due to the proximity of the parking to the entrance of the resort and the higher amount of competition for spaces due to the higher than normal amenities that day guest want to consume.

My original post was in the Annual meeting thread, before being moved by the moderator, and my original point was in regards that I'm surprised that even the action to investigate a new valet contract was even something considered at the meeting. But I guess DVD position is clear... We could have a Valet contract at some cost, but in their opinion is that the owners who would not use the benefit would not want to be subsidizing those that do.

 

[DebbieB]

Right, I don't want to see it come to this. I simply point it out since there are some who believe the BWV parking lot is for the exclusive use of the BWV resort or somehow grants DVC owners preferred parking... It's not... It's a shared resource and if we owners start making a fuss and demand more guaranteed parking... That simple formula Disney uses to allocate expenses will be reviewed, and drive up the cost of the dues.

That’s the predicament for BWV owners right now. Get more dedicate parking (and pay for it), negotiate a new bulk valet agreement, or leave the status quo and let those who wish to Valet pay for it on a pay per use situation.

We really don't know how much of the dues is dedicated to the parking lot. A few years back, a member of this board noticed that BWV dues per point for transportation were twice that of BCV. The reply from DVC was that there were more non-DVC rooms at BC so they pay less. BWV has more rooms than BWI, I wouldn't be surprised if DVC dues are paying for more than half the parking lot. BWV dues are the highest at WDW.