Poly DVC expansion coming 2024!

[Frugal Fairy Tales]

Yes, totally agree. The pools are soooo overrun.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Because the bungalows are so point heavy, they could lower the points required to stay there and move those excess points to the new Poly tower because the points have to go somewhere

Even if this was allowed, it would mean that the number of new points for sale at Poly tower can’t be as many because they have to consider what had already been sold at PVB, since total points at the resorts would still need to balance.

If the new rooms at the Poly tower are going to be more points already, it’d be hard for them to start that way if they want to shift bungalow points.

Thanks for this, which is helpful. Let me ask another dumb question: Given that PVB is already sold out, why would DVC really care about the number of points it takes to use any particular room? Those points have all been sold.

 

[Jlo85]

Maybe a way to look at things is that Poly Village Resort is a landlord. PVB is renting from them right now and part of that rental is use of everything as long as they pay for a certain share.

I get this, and I think Disney will do what they want to do. But they have a fiduciary duty to their timeshare owners and must act in good faith. And if dues go up like crazy, they will have to face the consequences. LIke they did with Aulani. It worked out for CCV, but inflation and everything, not sure it'll be the same situation for Poly1 and 2.

 

[Sandisw]

Thanks for this, which is helpful. Let me ask another dumb question: Given that PVB is already sold out, why would DVC really care about the number of points it takes to use any particular room? Those points have all been sold.

Current Poly has around 4 million points. Let’s say the new tower gets assigned 2.million points…for ease

If it’s all one association, that gives 6 million points that have to balance against all rooms at both…assuming reallocation of the points from current PvB can be moved to Poly tower,

If they sell the 2 million assigned to the new rooms, and then want to move some of the points assigned to the bungalows to the new tower, instead of the PvB studios, it means the new tower rooms rooms have to go even higher than where they start at in terms of sales.

While point charts can change, they do have to balance and it would mean they might have to consider not selling as many points as they could if it’s its own association.

 

[Sandisw]

I get this, and I think Disney will do what they want to do. But they have a fiduciary duty to their timeshare owners and must act in good faith. And if dues go up like crazy, they will have to face the consequences. LIke they did with Aulani. It worked out for CCV, but inflation and everything, not sure it'll be the same situation for Poly1 and 2.

They do, but it still is all determined by the terms of the current POS.

Right now, PVB owners have agreed to cover their share of expenses for any additional builds or expansions of the Poly Village resort that are considered common and those owners are given access like cash guests.

Even if the hotel had decided to add a third pool and there was no DVC building at all, PVB owners would be on the hook for their share of those of expenses to run that pool.

The Aulani situation was different. That was done on purpose to calculate the wrong dues amount from the start.

In the end, I think it could benefit PVB owners to have Poly tower to be its own association for dues purposes

 

[BeachClub2014]

If it’s all one association, that gives 6 million points that have to balance against all rooms at both…assuming reallocation of the points from current PvB can be moved to Poly tower,

Wouldn't the points assigned to the new rooms be predicated on the number and configuration of rooms in Poly Tower? If there are no bungalows in the tower, then why the need to balance?

 

[Sandisw]

Wouldn't the points assigned to the new rooms be predicated on the number and configuration of rooms in Poly Tower? If there are no bungalows in the tower, then why the need to balance?

Some feel that if it is all rolled into one, DVC will then be able to shift points out of the bungalows to the new tower rooms so that it will make them more accessible for booking…since right now, they are way too expensive and stay available for quite a while.

If it is a different association that can’t happen and thus the cost of the bungalows can’t be reduced without a big shift in costs at the current PVB.

So, if there are 6 million points all under one association, then the bungalows, the longhouses, and tower rooms would be fair game to reallocate where those points go, again assuming they can legally do it

 

[Jlo85]

They do, but it still is all determined by the terms of the current POS.

Right now, PVB owners have agreed to cover their share of expenses for any additional builds or expansions of the Poly Village resort that are considered common and those owners are given access like cash guests.

Even if the hotel had decided to add a third pool and there was no DVC building at all, PVB owners would be on the hook for their share of those of expenses to run that pool.

In the end, I think it could benefit PVB owners to have Poly tower to be its own association for dues purposes

I get that the POS gives Disney broad latitude, but it doesn't absolve them of their fiduciary duty. If dues on Poly1 go up substantially, owners would sue because it was a breach of fiduciary duty.

If it is separate associations, my assumption is they likely will put most of the dues on the new-build on Poly2, similar to what they did with CCV. That is also kind of interesting to speculate on. CCV opened at $7.33 vs. 6.54 for BRV. If an expansion would let them sell at dues around today's Poly dues ($7.39) vs the proportional increase $8.29. I wonder how much dues feed into the guide's sales pitch. Lower dues probably allows them to make a bigger sell of the resort. VGF expansion at $7.01 has to be a selling point vs. Riviera at $8.38.

 

[Sandisw]

I get that the POS gives Disney broad latitude, but it doesn't absolve them of their fiduciary duty. If dues on Poly1 go up substantially, owners would sue because it was a breach of fiduciary duty.

If it is separate associations, my assumption is they likely will put most of the dues on the new-build on Poly2, similar to what they did with CCV. That is also kind of interesting to speculate on. CCV opened at $7.33 vs. 6.54 for BRV. If an expansion would let them sell at dues around today's Poly dues ($7.39) vs the proportional increase $8.29. I wonder how much dues feed into the guide's sales pitch. Lower dues probably allows them to make a bigger sell of the resort. VGF expansion at $7.01 has to be a selling point vs. Riviera at $8.38.

Fiduciary responsibility in what way? Dues are based on operating costs and can rise as much as 15% in one year,

What operational costs owners are responsible to pay are outlined in the POS…its pretty straightforward and dues must match those items.

As long as the dues increase at PVB matches the actual cost increase associated with things that owners are paying, then it’s fair game.

Just like VGF owners…now that BPK is part of it, any increased costs associated with that building will now be split between all VGF owners, not just those new ones who own that building.

So, if there are increased expenses with adding Poly tower to the PVB, then all owners will be responsible for them.

If there are increased expenses for running common facilities, like transportation, pools, etc., with the new tower, regardless of the associaitoh , those will be passed on to PVB owners based on their required share.

Increased costs should be minimal because they are also now being split between more owners, whether it’s the same or different association.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but it sounds like you think that the POS gives PVB owners some say in what happens at the resort and what they can/can not be charged for if it considered a common facility.

You are correct that PVB owners can’t be charged for things that they cannot utilize…so, as already mentioned, they can’t be asked to pay for Poly tower pool if it is restricted to those guests and Is part of its own association.

 

[Jlo85]

Maybe I am misunderstanding but it sounds like you think that the POS gives PVB owners some say in what happens at the resort and what they can/can not be charged for if it considered a common facility.

I'm saying that if Disney does not act in the financial interests of their owners (e.g. breaches their financial duty), then they are subject to a lawsuit. This is a legal requirement per Chapter 721 in Florida, and would supersede any POS. Charging owners for amenities they will not practically use could be that type of breach. Not saying it will pass legal muster or anger enough PVB owners to spur action, but I'm just thinking what Disney's risk's could be. Basically, contract's aren't bullet-proof, and Disney can't really do anything they want. Though they definitely may try.

As I read the POS, I'm also curious if Disney can really unilaterally decide whether a pool addition is part of the hotel vs. part of the PVB. There is the below clause in the POS. I would think you could make the argument that expansions could belong solely to PVB owners. Not that we would want it, but I'm not sure Disney can really make that judgement call.

If DVD does add recreational or other commonly used facilities to the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows, those facilities will be included as part of the Common Elements of the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I'm saying that if Disney does not act in the financial interests of their owners (e.g. breaches their financial duty), then they are subject to a lawsuit. This is a legal requirement per Chapter 721 in Florida, and would supersede any POS. Charging owners for amenities they will not practically use could be that type of breach. Not saying it will pass legal muster or anger enough PVB owners to spur action, but I'm just thinking what Disney's risk's could be. Basically, contract's aren't bullet-proof, and Disney can't really do anything they want. Though they definitely may try.

As I read the POS, I'm also curious if Disney can really unilaterally decide whether a pool addition is part of the hotel vs. part of the PVB. There is the below clause in the POS. I would think you could make the argument that expansions could belong solely to PVB owners. Not that we would want it, but I'm not sure Disney can really make that judgement call.

If DVD does add recreational or other commonly used facilities to the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows, those facilities will be included as part of the Common Elements of the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows.

But if Disney makes the new tower’s pool available to everyone at PVB, it is indeed an amenity that PVB owners will “practically use,” isn‘t it? You might not want to make the walk but plenty will.

And, frankly, I think your concern that somehow PVB‘s dues will skyrocket is a tad unfounded. And with the pools so crowded at PVB, the addition of another water recreation venue sounds like a net gain for PVB owners.

That said, since I’m no PVB fan, I’d be just as happy if they created a separate association, dug a moat between Poly2 and Poly1, and would only lower the drawbridge if you wanted to go to Trader Sam’s. But maybe Poly2 will have an even more fun tiki bar, so then Disney could just stock the moat with piranha so no one on either side could ever get across!

 

[Jlo85]

But if Disney makes the new tower’s pool available to everyone at PVB, it is indeed an amenity that PVB owners will “practically use,” isn‘t it? You might not want to make the walk but plenty will.

And, frankly, I think your concern that somehow PVB‘s dues will skyrocket is a tad unfounded. And with the pools so crowded at PVB, the addition of another water recreation venue sounds like a net gain for PVB owners.

That said, since I’m no PVB fan, I’d be just as happy if they created a separate association, dug a moat between Poly2 and Poly1, and would only lower the drawbridge if you wanted to go to Trader Sam’s. But maybe Poly2 will have an even more fun tiki bar, so then Disney could just stock the moat with piranha so no one on either side could ever get across!

I think my ‘interest’ would be a pool closer to PVB that is exclusive to PVB. And in that way, making it the same association could be in my interest. I can stay close to a pool.

My main point is that I’m not certain Disney can 1) Push this through as a separate association without PVB approval. And 2) I’m not sure PVB approval is as easy as it was for BRV. CCV came with a bunch of additional shared amenities is my understanding. If Poly2 is only coming with a pool on the other side of the resort… not sure it’s as easy a sell. Even if Disney tries to force it through anyways.

 

[DVCsloth]

I think my ‘interest’ would be a pool closer to PVB that is exclusive to PVB. And in that way, making it the same association could be in my interest. I can stay close to a pool.

My main point is that I’m not certain Disney can 1) Push this through as a separate association without PVB approval. And 2) I’m not sure PVB approval is as easy as it was for BRV. CCV came with a bunch of additional shared amenities is my understanding. If Poly2 is only coming with a pool on the other side of the resort… not sure it’s as easy a sell. Even if Disney tries to force it through anyways.

I think all they added at CCV was a pool.

 

[Jlo85]

I think all they added at CCV was a pool.

It was before my time, but Google says CCV came with a lot of refurbishment (that CCV bore the cost of), sports courts, BBQ grills, a movie area, and a community hall. So, IMO the benefits for BRV were more clear-cut.

Poly2 may have more amenities and fewer rooms. So that in itself is kind of a guessing game. Maybe Poly will get a fitness center?

 

[Paul Stupin]

I think my ‘interest’ would be a pool closer to PVB that is exclusive to PVB. And in that way, making it the same association could be in my interest. I can stay close to a pool.

My main point is that I’m not certain Disney can 1) Push this through as a separate association without PVB approval. And 2) I’m not sure PVB approval is as easy as it was for BRV. CCV came with a bunch of additional shared amenities is my understanding. If Poly2 is only coming with a pool on the other side of the resort… not sure it’s as easy a sell. Even if Disney tries to force it through anyways.

I think you’re regarding PVB as a separate entity to which DVD must somehow plead their case, in order to gain approval for a separate association for Poly2. My understanding is that Disney controls all of these associations.

Am also relatively sure that Poly2 will come with other amenities about which we don’t yet know, such as additional splash pads and water rec features, a fireworks viewing deck, additional decks or terraces for getting sun, etc, etc. All that will be beneficial for Poly1 owners.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm saying that if Disney does not act in the financial interests of their owners (e.g. breaches their financial duty), then they are subject to a lawsuit. This is a legal requirement per Chapter 721 in Florida, and would supersede any POS. Charging owners for amenities they will not practically use could be that type of breach. Not saying it will pass legal muster or anger enough PVB owners to spur action, but I'm just thinking what Disney's risk's could be. Basically, contract's aren't bullet-proof, and Disney can't really do anything they want. Though they definitely may try.

As I read the POS, I'm also curious if Disney can really unilaterally decide whether a pool addition is part of the hotel vs. part of the PVB. There is the below clause in the POS. I would think you could make the argument that expansions could belong solely to PVB owners. Not that we would want it, but I'm not sure Disney can really make that judgement call.

If DVD does add recreational or other commonly used facilities to the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows, those facilities will be included as part of the Common Elements of the Polynesian Villas & Bungalows.

As I shared, and the clause states, that DVD can add new recreational facilities to the condo association and therefore it becomes a common element of that associaiton.

In theory, that means it could be restricted to use by guests staying at that resort, However, if it is a common element and DVD wants to limit it to only those guests staying in the DVC rooms, like at BLT, then the cost to maintain it will be 100% the responsibility of the owners, There would be no sharing of expenses with Poly Village Resorts,

So, if the add Poly tower to the PVB association, and include the new pool to it, then they can decide who gets access to it.

But, since the other pools at the resort, which are owned by TWDC as part of Poly Village Resort, and are shared with DVC owners, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that DVD is going to put in a brand new pool and restrict access and have owners pay the whole bill. Giving all guests access means that the costs get shared.

Of course, contracts are not always ironclad, but adding something to the condo association such as a pool or other recreational facility does not seem to be a breach of fiduciary, because it is something that enhances the owners enjoyment, whether they choose to use it or not….not to mention the fact that it was agreed to by owners that maintenance of such additions would become part of dues. The only thing DVD can’t do is add something and not pay for it completely. Owners can not be charged for its construction since DVD has sole authority to add it.

I own at SSR and there are pools spread all over the complex that I have to pay for even though not all of them are convenient for me to use when I am staying there...this would be no different. When the treehouses were added, so was a pool which is now part of the annual dues budget.

Being its own association can change things up in that the POS for that resort would define how things are declared and how it will be coordinated with both Poly Village Resort and PVB.

I do think that the way it works with CCV, BRV and WL is a good example of how we would see this play out if it’s a new association.

The more I think about it, I do think the pool will be declared as a recreational facility of the Poly tower, and not be classified as a hotel pool as I mentioned earlier, which means the POS will define that as well as reflect the terms for access.

And, if the Poly tower has resale restrictions, and the pool use was restricted to only guests staying at the tower, then PVB owners could not be charged anything for it, since some of its owners would be excluded from using it since they would be locked out of stays at the tower .

 

[Sandisw]

I think my ‘interest’ would be a pool closer to PVB that is exclusive to PVB. And in that way, making it the same association could be in my interest. I can stay close to a pool.

My main point is that I’m not certain Disney can 1) Push this through as a separate association without PVB approval. And 2) I’m not sure PVB approval is as easy as it was for BRV. CCV came with a bunch of additional shared amenities is my understanding. If Poly2 is only coming with a pool on the other side of the resort… not sure it’s as easy a sell. Even if Disney tries to force it through anyways.

The new tower is being built on land owned by TWDC at the Poly Village resort. and is an agreement between DVD and TWDC.

That agreement has nothing to do with PVB at all, unless it becomes part of its condo association, or when it comes time to coordinate common facilities use between three entities instead of the current two.

So, there is no approval needed by PVB owners to allow DVD to build a second DVC resort on the grounds of the Poly because they do not have ownership stake in that land.

Its really no different than if this was going to be an expansion of the hotel and not a DVC building. PVB would not have a say in whether or not they could do that.

ETA: My understanding of what happened with CCV, BRV and WL when CCV was added was an update of the agreements to allow everyone to have shared access to the recreational facilities at each…CCV doesn’t have any of its own.

It was not that BRV had to approve allowing CCV to be added to the location, but rather, once it was declared as a new condo association, the POS for both resorts needed to reflect the intentions of each association to allow the other one, along with WL, to use its facilities and how to split the expenses for those things that would be commonly used by all.

The initial BRV POS only included an agreement with WL, so once CCV was part of the complex, it needed to reflect that change.

 

[Paul Stupin]

As I shared, and the clause states, that DVD can add new recreational facilities to the condo association and therefore it becomes a common element of that associaiton.

In theory, that means it could be restricted to use by guests staying at that resort, However, if it is a common element and DVD wants to limit it to only those guests staying in the DVC rooms, like at BLT, then the cost to maintain it will be 100% the responsibility of the owners, There would be no sharing of expenses with Poly Village Resorts,

So, if the add Poly tower to the PVB association, and include the new pool to it, then they can decide who gets access to it.

But, since the other pools at the resort, which are owned by TWDC as part of Poly Village Resort, and are shared with DVC owners, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that DVD is going to put in a brand new pool and restrict access and have owners pay the whole bill. Giving all guests access means that the costs get shared.

Of course, contracts are not always ironclad, but adding something to the condo association such as a pool does not seem to be a breach of fiduciary, because it is something that enhances the owners enjoyment, whether they choose to use it or not.

I own at SSR and there are pools spread all over the complex that I have to pay for even though not all of them are convenient for me to use when I am staying there...this would be no different.

Being its own association can change things up in that the POS for that resort would define how things are declared and how it will be coordinated with both Poly Village Resort and PVB.

I do think that the way it works with CCV, BRV and WL is a good example of how we would see this play out if it’s a new association.

The more I think about it, I do think the pool will be declared as a recreational facility of the Poly tower, and not be classified as a hotel pool as I mentioned earlier, which means the POS will reflect that as well as reflect the terms for access.

And, if the Poly tower has resale restrictions, and the pool use was restricted to only guests staying at the tower, then PVB owners could not be charged anything for it, since some of its owners would be excluded from using it since they would be locked out of stays at the tower .

Would be great for Poly2 owners if its pool were restricted. And it might be odd to buy into the resort, if it is a separate association, only to discover the pool overwhelmed with Poly1 guests.

 

[Sandisw]

Would be great for Poly2 owners if its pool were restricted. And it might be odd to buy into the resort, if it is a separate association, only to discover the pool overwhelmed with Poly1 guests.

I am sure it would be a nice aspect, but the problem is that it is so close to the current longhouses of the Poly Village Resort that it could be hard to manage that

It works at BLT because that building is far away from the CR tower and garden wing. With Poly tower, it’s right there next to the hotel.

I know if it is restricted to Poly tower guests only, then PVB guests and hotel guests would be upset if the resort pools were not restricted as well for Poly tower guests…and I don’t see that happening either.

But, only those in charge have an idea of how it will all play out! I’m still leaning new association but if VDH doesn’t come out with the restrictions then it’s safe to say, they have changed their long term strategy snd this won’t have them either, which makes it much more likely it will be part of PVB.

 

[Paul Stupin]

I am sure it would be a nice aspect, but the problem is that it is so close to the current longhouses of the Poly Village Resort that it could be hard to manage that

It works at BLT because that building is far away from the CR tower and garden wing. With Poly tower, it’s right there next to the hotel.

I know if it is restricted to Poly tower guests only, then PVB guests and hotel guests would be upset if the resort pools were not restricted as well for Poly tower guests…and I don’t see that happening either.

But, only those in charge have an idea of how it will all play out! I’m still leaning new association but if VDH doesn’t come out with the restrictions then it’s safe to say, they have changed their long term strategy snd this won’t have them either, which makes it much more likely it will be part of PVB.

Yeah, agreed. I think VDH will have restrictions. I live in LA, and don’t think any of the buyers out here will care.