Wilderness Lodge II Announced (9/22/15)

[Dean]

Completely agree.

Disney once announced Eagle Pines. It never happened because plans change.

And Newport Coast but I think this one's too far along to have much risk of the same fate.

 

[pangyal]

Agree...things can change. But adding to the existing VWL condo association always seemed like a longshot. Recent changes to Florida timeshare law formalized the ability to extend leases with stated end dates. But that same law requires that properties reach 25 years old before they can be extended. VWL won't even turn 15 years until later this year.

And selling more points without that contract extension is even more unlikely.

Ah, I didn't realize that the new legislation would make it impossible to extend at this time, if I'm understanding correctly- that's very interesting, thanks !

 

[Dean]

Ah, I didn't realize that the new legislation would make it impossible to extend at this time, if I'm understanding correctly- that's very interesting, thanks !

I don't think it'd be impossible, just not as easy.

 

[drusba]

I think there may be some misunderstanding of the new timeshare law as it relates to extensions. The new amendments have provisions allowing for an extension of the end date for a timeshare that has been in existence 25 or more years by a 60 percent vote of the members, and if the timeshare is one component of a multi-site timeshare (like Disney's), the developer managing the sites can veto any such vote. Those extension provisions apply only to the extent the timeshare documents applicable to the site do not provide otherwise. Under the documents for all the DVC sites, Disney retains the exclusive right to extend the end dates of the resorts and thus the new provisions are inapplicable to DVC and Disney can do an extension at any time.

 

[katieam1]

I'm looking forward to more info and seeing renderings. Should be interesting...

 

[CarolMN]

What about about the impact of the new VWL resort on annual dues for the original VWL?

I assume that the original VWL will have to pay a share of the upkeep on the new amentities and about the same for the existing ones. The new VWL will pay a share of both the new and the existing, so the WL hotel side will see new amentities and a much lower cost for upkeep since the two VWL resorts will be shouldering a lot of the cost for the common elements. Good assumption or not? What do the rest of you think?

 

[Dean]

What about about the impact of the new VWL resort on annual dues for the original VWL?

I assume that the original VWL will have to pay a share of the upkeep on the new amentities and about the same for the existing ones. The new VWL will pay a share of both the new and the existing, so the WL hotel side will see new amentities and a much lower cost for upkeep since the two VWL resorts will be shouldering a lot of the cost for the common elements. Good assumption or not? What do the rest of you think?

I'm sure there are some more versed in this subject than I am, I know some got into it pretty heavily a few years ago comparing BWV to BCV. In general the new resort will likely slighly decrease the dues and add some stability going forward. IIRC it's the saturation (# of people) not number of rooms or footage that determines how common expenses (like transportation) are allotted. I'm presuming that the current resort owns the quiet pool so there would be some compensation or trade off from the new component if the design puts much pressure on the pool. Each resort otherwise would pay for the components directly related such as the common rooms in the current VWL are paid by those members.

 

[Granny]

What about about the impact of the new VWL resort on annual dues for the original VWL?

In general the new resort will likely slighly decrease the dues and add some stability going forward.

Dean, I respect your opinion on the impact on dues, but I must say that I share some of Carol's concerns. If there is a significant increase in amenities and operating costs as is rumored (new Community Hall, new restaurant, revamped quiet pool) then it will be interesting to see how those costs get split up between the three entities (Wilderness Lodge, VWL and VWL2).

Ever since the rumor started on VWL expansion, I had wondered how Disney would handle the huge discrepancy in expiration dates. Overall, the creation of VWL2 seems to be the cleanest and fairest way to handle it. It will be interesting to see if they create any additional perks (beyond additional RTU years) for the VWL2 owners to help support the new price.

 

[Dean]

Dean, I respect your opinion on the impact on dues, but I must say that I share some of Carol's concerns. If there is a significant increase in amenities and operating costs as is rumored (new Community Hall, new restaurant, revamped quiet pool) then it will be interesting to see how those costs get split up between the three entities (Wilderness Lodge, VWL and VWL2).

Ever since the rumor started on VWL expansion, I had wondered how Disney would handle the huge discrepancy in expiration dates. Overall, the creation of VWL2 seems to be the cleanest and fairest way to handle it. It will be interesting to see if they create any additional perks (beyond additional RTU years) for the VWL2 owners to help support the new price.

VWL is not a large resort. It'd be difficult to imagine Disney would add enough amenities that raise overall costs. Each resort would pay for their own and share common expenses, often with the regular hotel side as well (transportation) and likely FW in some cases. I think worst case scenario is any increases from additional amenities would be both buffered by the new resort and to a degree, the hotel as well. Plus there will be some offset with savings on the current shared expenses. IIRC from the BCV/BWV discussion, DVC tends to pay more than their "fair share" of the shared expenses compared to the attached hotel components due to the way the expenses are allotted. I haven't seen a discussion on the breakdown of total expenses and dues for the Poly but I suspect DVC there will have an even greater % of the common costs due to the nature and number of studios. I think it's a valid discussion but I can't see being concerned about it.

DVC dues are high comparatively speaking to other timeshares anyway, I'd estimate roughly 30% higher compared to Marriott. This happens for a number of reasons that mostly include the basics of a points system and the on property nature. However, DVC falls significantly behind most Marriott's from a refurbishment view since Marriott has a more formal and reproducible plan. To me this puts the difference as even greater. Marriott Grande Vista compared to SSR is a fair comparison. SSR for Magic would be roughly $1630 for a 2 BR and $3665 for a 3 BR for a week. MGV for their highest period (platinum) for 2015 is around $1200 & 1500 respectively and that includes the Premier time for DVC. Marriott trust points for a 2 BR summer at MGV will be more in the $1500 & $2000 range but will give you home resort priority at many resorts (or no resort if you prefer to look at it that way).

 

[tjkraz]

IIRC it's the saturation (# of people) not number of rooms or footage that determines how common expenses (like transportation) are allotted.

That is my understanding as well. Hypothetically, if 25% of the resort's total registered guests are staying in VWL I units, 35% VWL II and 40% hotel, common expenses will be allocated to owner dues in those same increments.

If there is a significant increase in amenities and operating costs as is rumored (new Community Hall, new restaurant, revamped quiet pool) then it will be interesting to see how those costs get split up between the three entities (Wilderness Lodge, VWL and VWL2).

Restaurants are a profit center for Disney so there should not be any dues impact.

Construction costs for new amenities can either be paid by Disney itself or charged to the DVC capital improvements budget (or some combination of the two.) Operating costs for the new amenities would be passed-along to owners as outlined above.

Prior illustrations of this include the new pool slide at OKW and the second feature pool at SSR. In the OKW scenario, Disney claimed to have paid for initial construction while dues later covered lifeguard costs and increased upkeep. In the SSR example, I believe construction was considered a capital improvement and charged to owner dues. Upkeep was also added to dues.

 

[Granny]

Dean & Tim...thank you for the responses. I appreciate the insight into DVD workings. No matter what, this will be something that all DVC owners will want to watch as it could easily be replicated at other locations. Especially the regular resort room conversions to DVC villas.

 

[Eric Topp]

Hopefully they will not continue the Poly experience (Studio's for everyone or the Uber expensive lake properties)!

 

[Dean]

Dean & Tim...thank you for the responses. I appreciate the insight into DVD workings. No matter what, this will be something that all DVC owners will want to watch as it could easily be replicated at other locations. Especially the regular resort room conversions to DVC villas.

No doubt this will be somewhat of a new beginning for DVC. It will be interesting the direction as 2042 draws closer. Will they close resorts (or portion like OKW), will they refurb and sell again? Will they downsize? IMO the biggest risks to watch for are 2, that they try to get the expiring resorts ready to resale at the expiring owners expense and that they downsize but don't sufficiently trim the infrastructure and admin to the level appropriate from a financial standpoint.

 

[Dean Marino]

No doubt this will be somewhat of a new beginning for DVC. It will be interesting the direction as 2042 draws closer. Will they close resorts (or portion like OKW), will they refurb and sell again? Will they downsize? IMO the biggest risks to watch for are 2, that they try to get the expiring resorts ready to resale at the expiring owners expense and that they downsize but don't sufficiently trim the infrastructure and admin to the level appropriate from a financial standpoint.

Now "what happens in 2042" has always intrigued me. I've always wondered if, until now, WDW HAD an "endgame plan" for what to do with a DVC offering when the contracts ran out. Just a suspicion on my part - are we seeing the first "endgame plan"?. Having two DVC offerings at one physical site, with different contract end dates, would give Disney the TIME to do something with the "old" VWL. I wonder if the same plan might be implemented next at the "next oldest" DVC site? Anyone know what that site would be?

 

[Granny]

Now "what happens in 2042" has always intrigued me. I've always wondered if, until now, WDW HAD an "endgame plan" for what to do with a DVC offering when the contracts ran out. Just a suspicion on my part - are we seeing the first "endgame plan"?. Having two DVC offerings at one physical site, with different contract end dates, would give Disney the TIME to do something with the "old" VWL. I wonder if the same plan might be implemented next at the "next oldest" DVC site? Anyone know what that site would be?

The 2042 WDW resorts, in order of opening date, are

OKW
BWV
VWL
BCV

So I don't know that this is an endgame situation as much as it is a response to the success of the Poly bungalow sales? We'll see, I guess.

 

[tjkraz]

So I don't know that this is an endgame situation as much as it is a response to the success of the Poly bungalow sales?

These plans were in the works long before the bungalows opened. The only real criticism I've ever heard of the bungalows are the costs. DVC will have 2-3 years worth of bungalow occupancy data on which to base pricing of the cabins. At the right price, the cabins will be immensely popular. Question is how far Disney will try to push that pricing.

Overall, this strategy of revisiting an older resort is a means to an end. Disney needs DVC rooms to sell. Meanwhile they've lost Deluxe hotel business as some guests became DVC owners, some opt for non-Disney deluxes like Four Seasons and some choose more economical locations like the AoA suites.

Reducing the overall inventory of Deluxe rooms allows Disney to keep prices high (supply/demand). And repurposing existing rooms & resorts for DVC is much cheaper than building an entirely new resort on undeveloped land.

 

[Deb & Bill]

So, they added on to OKW several years after OKW opened. Bldg 62, 63 and 64 were built where the Commodore House used to stand. They didn't make it a new resort. But they offered an extension to 2057.

SSR was added on to with the Treehouse Villas after SSR opened. They didn't make it a new resort.

These new buildings are larger than the existing VWL, but do they really need to make it a new resort?

 

[Granny]

So, they added on to OKW several years after OKW opened. Bldg 62, 63 and 64 were built where the Commodore House used to stand. They didn't make it a new resort. But they offered an extension to 2057.

SSR was added on to with the Treehouse Villas after SSR opened. They didn't make it a new resort.

These new buildings are larger than the existing VWL, but do they really need to make it a new resort?

When those additions to OKW were done, there were still more than 40 years of use left on the contracts. Right?

And the same with the Treehouse Villas at SSR.

Right now there are only 26 years of use left on VWL 2042 contracts. I think that is what is driving a new resort classification here. Hard to sell $160 per point new contracts for 26 year RTU's.

 

[Dean]

Now "what happens in 2042" has always intrigued me. I've always wondered if, until now, WDW HAD an "endgame plan" for what to do with a DVC offering when the contracts ran out. Just a suspicion on my part - are we seeing the first "endgame plan"?. Having two DVC offerings at one physical site, with different contract end dates, would give Disney the TIME to do something with the "old" VWL. I wonder if the same plan might be implemented next at the "next oldest" DVC site? Anyone know what that site would be?

I don't think this has much impact either way on their ability to keep the system going or a given location viable. They can easily close down an entire resort, raze it and start fresh if they wanted with no real loss other than the inherent economics. I think the only wierd part about it is that it's a new direction they haven't gone to previoulsy whether it was simply the right time or a tough decision, we'll never know but I vote for the former. It's a pretty tame choice for timeshares in general, I wouldn't read too much into it.

 

[LauraLea]

When those additions to OKW were done, there were still more than 40 years of use left on the contracts. Right?

And the same with the Treehouse Villas at SSR.

Right now there are only 26 years of use left on VWL 2042 contracts. I think that is what is driving a new resort classification here. Hard to sell $160 per point new contracts for 26 year RTU's.

I do not understand. Current direct points for VWL is $155, this for 26 years.

So at what price will they sell the new VWL?

Laura