Ft. Wilderness Cabins becoming DVC?

[Sykes]

I don't have any specific reason to doubt the report, but $12.15 seems crazy high. If that's really the case then it'll be interesting to read the association budgets to see where the money is going. I understand that replacing the cabins will be expensive, but so is any major maintenance project in a large multi-unit building. That number implies more than 2x the maintenance/reserve budget of a typical DVC resort.

 

[Hubalorian]

I have to wonder if this was “leaked” on purpose. For example, if people have been worrying about “high dues” then leak a 12.15 - 12.50 dues. When in reality the dues will be 10.30ish and people take a sigh it’s not in the twelves

 

[eticketplease]

I have to wonder if this was “leaked” on purpose. For example, if people have been worrying about “high dues” then leak a 12.15 - 12.50 dues. When in reality the dues will be 10.30ish and people take a sigh it’s not in the twelves

That would be something!!

 

[Sandisw]

I am not comparing the resorts. Really using the three to find any sort of equation that explains why SSR is so close to the 2 monorail resorts.

In your statement that if it costs more points per night than the dues would be lower.

In that example wouldn’t Riviera be less expensive then pretty much the lowest dues per point out there?

After all its point charts are pretty neck and neck with VGF and only Poly Studios are more points than those two. (Not counting VGF TP)
It’s not and is middle of the pack costing less than BCV, BRV, OKW but more than SSR, BLT and VGF

Sorry just trying to get some clarity.

It’s not points per night in general. It’s points per night that help raise the total points sold at the resort which is what covers the cost to maintain the resort

There is no way to correlate other than that the total cost to operate SSR is comparative because when that total is divided by the 14 million points its comes out to a similar cost to what the total at VGF is when it’s divided by the 4 million points.

Simple math…for example sake…let’s say it takes $14 million to operate SSR because it’s so large. That’s $1/pt.

It takes only $4 million to operate VGF because it is so much smaler. It’s still $1/pt.

So, the relationship is relative to the size of the resort, and the actual cost to operate.

Now, let’s reverse it.. let’s say that they had made VGF point chart half the amount. And the resort had only 2 million points. It would still take $4 million to operate because it would be the same size. Dues are now $2/pt.

Let’s say SSR was twice as much per night and it had 28 million points…same $14 million to operate…dues are $.50/point

So the more points at a resort, the more the operating costs can be spread out.

 

[walt34]

In that example wouldn’t Riviera be less expensive then pretty much the lowest dues per point out there?

Riviera does have a high point chart, which spreads out the operation and maintenance costs but:

It does not share resources with anybody (pools, gym, lobby,...)
It has its own Skyliner station and Disney uses a lot of cast members to operate a Skyliner station (if compared to the same gondola system used in skiing areas). Transportation costs at RIV are nearly twice the transportation costs at VGF.

So RIV has higher costs overall (as compared to VGF which shares transportation, pools and other amenities with the hotel side). If its points per night were lower, the dues per point would be even higher.

 

[eticketplease]

Riviera does have a high point chart, which spreads out the operation and maintenance costs but:

It does not share resources with anybody (pools, gym, lobby,...)
It has its own Skyliner station and Disney uses a lot of cast members to operate a Skyliner station (if compared to the same gondola system used in skiing areas). Transportation costs at RIV are nearly twice the transportation costs at VGF.

So RIV has higher costs overall (as compared to VGF which shares transportation, pools and other amenities with the hotel side). If its points per night were lower, the dues per point would be even higher.

Yes I realize that it doesn't share anything with anyone and it is all on the owners to pick up the tab for operating/maintenance costs.

I only stated Riviera as from what I could understand from @Sandisw if it has a high point chart the dues would be lower which is obviously not the case.

 

[eticketplease]

It’s not points per night in general. It’s points per night that help raise the total points sold at the resort which is what covers the cost to maintain the resort

There is no way to correlate other than that the total cost to operate SSR is comparative because when that total is divided by the 14 million points its comes out to a similar cost to what the total at VGF is when it’s divided by the 4 million points.

Simple math…for example sake…let’s say it takes $14 million to operate SSR because it’s so large. That’s $1/pt.

It takes only $4 million to operate VGF because it is so much smaler. It’s still $1/pt.

So, the relationship is relative to the size of the resort, and the actual cost to operate.

Now, let’s reverse it.. let’s say that they had made VGF point chart half the amount. And the resort had only 2 million points. It would still take $4 million to operate because it would be the same size. Dues are now $2/pt.

Let’s say SSR was twice as much per night and it had 28 million points…same $14 million to operate…dues are $.50/point

So the more points at a resort, the more the operating costs can be spread out.

I understand and agree with you that the more points at a resort the lower the dues.

I still don't think it really has much to do with the point charts being higher or lower.
The dues ultimately come down to the operating expenses divided by the number of points at the resort.

It's how your expenses occur that is the issue.

A larger portion of operating expenses depends on the construction of the resort. If it is compact and only one to two buildings it should theoretically be cheaper. You don't need as many cast members to service it in a timely manner as people have a shorter distance to travel. For example Bell services bringing your luggage at VGF Building 1 and BLT don't have to leave the building where as OKW/SSR/Poly are constantly moving throughout the resort.

Of course transportation also plays into the cost as some are more expensive than others.

The last thing is if it is a standalone resort the dues are generally going to be higher as Disney is only paying the for the 2% of the resort they own as opposed to when it is attached/associated with a hotel like BLT, VGF, BCV or BWV.

 

[walt34]

Yes I realize that it doesn't share anything with anyone and it is all on the owners to pick up the tab for operating/maintenance costs.

I only stated Riviera as from what I could understand from @Sandisw if it has a high point chart the dues would be lower which is obviously not the case.

You have to compare like-for-like. VGF would have been a better example (because it shares resources as many DVC properties do). Due to the high point chart, VGFs dues per point are among the lowest in the system.

 

[walt34]

I understand and agree with you that the more points at a resort the lower the dues.

I still don't think it really has much to do with the point charts being higher or lower.
The dues ultimately come down to the operating expenses divided by the number of points at the resort.

It's how your expenses occur that is the issue.

It's not one or the other. Building type, transportation, area, etc. are all factors. As is the number of points these costs are divided by.

 

[eticketplease]

You have to compare like-for-like. VGF would have been a better example (because it shares resources as many DVC properties do). Due to the high point chart, VGFs dues per point are among the lowest in the system.

Walt I used Riviera based on

But if the resort has a higher point charts its dues will be lower per point if that same resort did not.

In that case Riviera has a high point chart but the dues were lower.
The statement did not state if it was associated with a hotel like VGF or a Standalone resort.
Stand alone resorts have the costs covered 98% by owners and the other 2% from Disney. If it is associated with a hotel Disney picks up more of the tab.

 

[Unclelude]

X = Y ÷ Z

What makes X bigger?

X (dues) gets bigger if Y (operation costs) gets bigger or Z (point chart) gets smaller.

I don't understand why this is confusing. It's all relative.

 

[eticketplease]

X = Y ÷ Z

What makes X bigger?

X (dues) gets bigger if Y (operation costs) gets bigger or Z (point chart) gets smaller.

I don't understand why this is confusing. It's all relative.

Z would be "Resort Point Total" which is a constant and can't be changed. not the point chart

Edit Z from "Points Sold" to "Resort Point Total"

 

[ocdb8r1]

All the above math is completely clear to me. The fixed costs of the resort are going to be what they are based on all the components discussed (buildings/refurbs, maintenance, housekeeping, transport, utilities...etc). The more points issued for the resort the more points there are to spread those total running costs. As they assigned relatively fewer points for these units, there are fewer points to spread across the resort - the points required for what is a full 1-bedroom (with a full kitchen) is less than many studios at current resorts and as such I guess it shouldn't be a surprise the MF/point might be higher.

All that said...the devil is in the details and I'd be curious on some of the line items. Is the planned resort budget released on day one of sales? Some things I'd be curious to see:

1) Transport - a lot of people have mentioned high transport costs because of the nature of the resort BUT this is not a standalone resort like OKW or SSR. While CFW will be dependent on an extensive internal bus network, the footprint of the cabin loops is only a small portion of CFW. The bus/boat costs should be shared with the remainder of the resort (and I note Disney seems to have been able to turn a profit on the cabins at moderate resort rates so I wouldn't expect "transport" costs to be so outrageous.....and I'd expect overall lower than the other standalone resorts;

2) Laundry - there has to be some savings over full 1-beds given only shared laundry facilities;

3) Buildings/refurbs - this is one I'm not sure about. The cabins being "pre-fab" would lead me to believe that the 14 year hard refurb could be done at a similar cost or savings to having to strip back an existing building and rebuild. The savings in both manpower (being able to use an offsite mfg process) as well as modular ability to just swap one unit out for another with minimal disruption (e.g. you'd never have to "close" rooms/floors off for an extended period) should also result in some savings. However, none of that changes the fact there has to be some extra costs due to each unit being "standalone" and having a full kitchen for the lowest points in the network (for units with a full kitchen).

4) Land lease - I am curious what Disney is charging for the land; these units will definitely have the biggest "land" footprint of any DVC unit (on an overall per unit basis) and this could add significantly to the costs.

 

[walt34]

The statement did not state if it was associated with a hotel like VGF or a Standalone resort.

But this is the reason, why the dues at Riviera are not lower than they currently are: because the overall costs are higher for a standalone resort.

If both factors came together (low overall costs, high 'resort point total') you would get the lowest dues per point in the system.

At this point I believe we are only discussing semantics.

 

[walt34]

3) Buildings/refurbs - this is one I'm not sure about. The cabins being "pre-fab" would lead me to believe that the 14 year hard refurb could be done at a similar cost or savings to having to strip back an existing building and rebuild. The savings in both manpower (being able to use an offsite mfg process) as well as modular ability to just swap one unit out for another with minimal disruption (e.g. you'd never have to "close" rooms/floors off for an extended period) should also result in some savings. However, none of that changes the fact there has to be some extra costs due to each unit being "standalone" and having a full kitchen for the lowest points in the network (for units with a full kitchen).

The building type will probably also drive energy costs (AC), insurance and they have a lot more surface exposed to the elements. I'm not sure how far they strip back larger buildings during the hard refurb.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

I still don't think it really has much to do with the point charts being higher or lower.
The dues ultimately come down to the operating expenses divided by the number of points at the resort.

You’re not wrong, it is about the number of points at the resort but @Sandisw point still stands. One causes the other. If the number of points is higher (so dues would be lower, like everyone has said) then those increased numbers of points have to go somewhere, ergo, higher point charts. So yes, higher points charts will alleviate the cost of the dues because that means there are more points total.

The situation with Riviera, as @walt34 has pointed is out, is that the overall cost of operations is very high that even a high point chart isn’t enough to bring it to the VGF dues level. To make them lower DVD would have had to add more points to the total resort and those points would be reflected in an even higher point chart. It really is just semantics at this point.

 

[eticketplease]

But this is the reason, why the dues at Riviera are not lower than they currently are: because the overall costs are higher for a standalone resort.

I agree with you.

Again the only reason I even threw Riviera in to the discussion:

An individual stated dues are less expensive because the point charts are higher.
The person did not mention shared/standalone only in the statement.
I showcased Riviera that has a High Point chart against others with lower point charts showing that is not the case.

VDH point chart is high too and it is a shared amenities/transportation. It's dues are certainly not lower because of the point chart. And yes of course labor costs for Cast Members in CA will be higher which means the dues will be as well.

The dues are not based on the point chart.

 

[eticketplease]

You’re not wrong, it is about the number of points at the resort but @Sandisw point still stands. One causes the other. If the number of points is higher (so dues would be lower, like everyone has said) then those increased numbers of points have to go somewhere, ergo, higher point charts. So yes, higher points charts will alleviate the cost of the dues because that means there are more points total.

SSR is the 4th lowest in dues at WDW of the 11 resorts..
Point Charts are not high.
Resort has a large amount of points(14 million) though to distribute the dues.

BRV is the 8th lowest in dues at WDW of the 11 resorts.
Point Charts are not high.
Resort has a small amount of points (1.9 million) though to distribute the dues.

RIV is the 9th lowest in dues at WDW of the 11 resorts.
Point Charts are high.
Resort has a decent amount of points (6.7 million) though to distribute the dues.

VGF is the lowest in dues at WDW of the 11 resorts.
Point Charts are high.
Resort has a semi-decent amount of points (4.3 million) though to distribute the dues.


Higher Point Charts do not necessarily mean more points total.

The situation with Riviera, as @walt34 has pointed is out, is that the overall cost of operations is very high that even a high point chart isn’t enough to bring it to the VGF dues level.

I was never stating Riviera should be lower than VGF I simply used them as examples.

Please see post 65262845

 

[wilkydelts]

Im not a moderator but can we please move on.

 

[DL1WDW2]

This has me wondering … if the AK / DVC members pay for cost of the animals associated with a visit and what makes it unique …
Will DVC also be responsible for the care for the horses , etc. in their dues?