St John Pool Villa Owners Voting

Has any pool villa owner received recent info re voting to install a wall between the upstairs bedrooms in the older pool villas? We want to vote for this proposal, but we are in Spain now (and for the next 5 weeks), and all our mail is waiting for us at home. I had thought we would be receiving something by email, but nothing has appeared since we left home 2 weeks ago.

Are we missing anything here?

Thanks for any updates.

--bp

Sorry - can't help. I did read something about this proposal, but unfortunately the SVO-WSJ-VGV database is not good based on other experiences. This, and other factors, makes it challenging to get a quorum - much less a consensus (majority for this?) - for voting.

You could try and emailing Phil Schag and ask him what is the status of this proposal.

Important Message from Virgin Grand Villas Owner-Elected Representatives

Dear Buildings 41 and 42 Owners,

As owner-elected representatives of Virgin Grand Villas - St. John Condominium Owners Association, we want to make you aware of a very important initiative that you will be asked to vote upon at the upcoming Annual Members Meeting to be held on March 3, 2014. ACTION BY YOU IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THIS INITIATIVE TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

Last year, a survey of Buildings 41 and 42 owners was conducted to determine interest in constructing a permanent wall to separate the upstairs bedrooms. Of those responding, 91% were in favor of constructing the wall. Due to the overwhelming favorable response, we are pleased to inform you that this item will appear on this year's proxy, to be voted upon by owners in Buildings 41 and 42.

KEY POINTS
100% of all owners within any given unit must approve the construction of the permanent wall.
There is no additional cost to construct the wall. The project will be funded by replacement reserve funds already collected for future renovation of the existing accordion-style wall.
Construction is expected to be performed during maintenance weeks and will have no impact on owner occupancy.
Depending upon the voting results of each unit in Buildings 41 and 42, it is possible that some units may approve the construction (having received a 100% favorable vote) while others may not. In this instance, a permanent wall will be constructed only in the units which receive 100% approval.
In the next few days, you will be receiving by postal mail additional information about this important initiative that will include a sample section of the ballot that will appear on the proxy. Please note that the Notice of the Annual Meeting and Agenda will be mailed to owners on February 3, 2014. The Notice will include instructions for casting your vote online or requesting a proxy to be mailed to you, if desired.

We recommend a vote in favor of constructing the wall to separate the upstairs bedrooms in Buildings 41 and 42.

Thank you in advance for your vote in favor of this important initiative.

Philip Schrag and Robert Werbel
Owner-Elected Representatives

Never did receive the proxy

We never did receive the proxy. I guess the opportunity to vote passed us up.
--bp

Seems ridiculous that 100% of owners must vote in favor. What happens if someone doesn't receive the form, accidentally throws it out, or simply fails to respond in a timely fashion? That's a very high bar and unless I am misunderstanding something it seems unlikely that any of the units will actually have this wall constructed.

okwiater said:

Seems ridiculous that 100% of owners must vote in favor. What happens if someone doesn't receive the form, accidentally throws it out, or simply fails to respond in a timely fashion? That's a very high bar and unless I am misunderstanding something it seems unlikely that any of the units will actually have this wall constructed.

Click to expand...

They could mean 100% of the responders for each particular room. They already know that only 91% were in favor to begin with.

The meeting was held already so an owner there should be able to find out which rooms, if any, will be altered.

okwiater said:

Seems ridiculous that 100% of owners must vote in favor. What happens if someone doesn't receive the form, accidentally throws it out, or simply fails to respond in a timely fashion? That's a very high bar and unless I am misunderstanding something it seems unlikely that any of the units will actually have this wall constructed.

Click to expand...

csxjohn said:

They could mean 100% of the responders for each particular room. They already know that only 91% were in favor to begin with.

The meeting was held already so an owner there should be able to find out which rooms, if any, will be altered.

Click to expand...

Exactly, every owner of, for example 4101 must vote infavor to get the wall built in 4101, same for 4102 etc. Or whatever the room numbers are.

It is a high bar, especially if you consider weeks where the owner is delinquent, deceased or otherwise unresponsive.

I wonder if the other 9% said no, were ambivilent, did not understand the question or were looking for the swim up bar and not interested in surveys?

100% is an unrealistic bar when it comes to voting (or the ability to get complete participation). Perhaps they are sensitive to the lawsuit against the HOA regarding the refurbish as it is somewhat analogous.

The lawsuit effectively started with the refurbish of VGV - where the HOA couldn't get a quorum for a vote on a badly needed refurbish (IMO) and the RRs were not kept up to pay for the refurbish (thus MF were much lower than today). The HOA eventually got it done without a vote, but led to a lawsuit by disgruntled owners (actually very small percent) who had apparently come to the realization that SVO controlled the HOA (big surprise) as SVO gets 4:1 voting on the weeks they own (~10%). The history of this is in the long WSJ thread (inter-mingled), and got pretty contentious at one point (guilty...). However, it led to a unique outcome to get 2 'real' WSJ Owners on the HOA BOD (the only one in all of SVO - TYVM). It is Bob and Phil (VGV BOD members/owners) who are attempting to improve these VGV 3Bd pool villa (2 of 4), and I cannot blame them as the folding wall set-up is a bad design. However (IMO), it is a pie-in-the-sky dream to get 100% of pool-villa owners to either agree or respond (if that is the case).

I think in this particular case a 100% vote would be the right thing to do.

Think of it this way.

All 50 owners of my particular room bought with this open floor plan on the second floor.

Through the years ownership changes and now a bunch of people think it would be nicer to have a wall to split up the rooms.

Where does that leave the folks who bought because of the current floor plan?

I know if I owned there and loved the set up, I would be very upset over a move to make the change.

On the other hand, I wonder how their rules are set up that it would take a 100% vote to make "improvements."

I agree (to a point), but perhaps it would be better to find 1 owner to say no, than 100% to say yes - as long as everyone was contacted (a problem in itself).

I can imagine that some individual may like the folding wall, but IMO (having seen both) it is a poor design. The 1st two 3Bd pool buildings were designed this way - buyers did not have a choice, nor did they design it - they just accepted it (most likely).

For the VGV refurbish they couldn't even get a quorum (50%) to even respond. As this is specific to just 2 buildings - they probably have to get all to vote - and for some reason it has to be 100% (very high bar).

I'd have to agree with David.

In theory, a 100% vote sounds great. However, when you factor in missed mailings, disinterested parties, and perhaps deceased or delinquent owners, I think the prospect of getting 100% vote is unrealistic.

In fact, it would seem like it is a waste of time to conduct such an effort. All you need is one abstain (intentional or unintentional) or no vote to halt the effort.

-ryan

sjsharkie said:

I'd have to agree with David.

In theory, a 100% vote sounds great. However, when you factor in missed mailings, disinterested parties, and perhaps deceased or delinquent owners, I think the prospect of getting 100% vote is unrealistic.

In fact, it would seem like it is a waste of time to conduct such an effort. All you need is one abstain (intentional or unintentional) or no vote to halt the effort.

-ryan

Click to expand...

That's why I suggested that maybe they mean 100% of those voting. Why bother otherwise?

csxjohn said:

That's why I suggested that maybe they mean 100% of those voting. Why bother otherwise?

Click to expand...

Here's hoping. 100% of respondents would at least make some amount of sense. Otherwise, owner ambivalence or laziness is wrongly being interpreted as a "no" vote.

okwiater said:

Here's hoping. 100% of respondents would at least make some amount of sense. Otherwise, owner ambivalence or laziness is wrongly being interpreted as a "no" vote.

Click to expand...

I agree - this should also hold for general HOA votes as long as the HOA is well-informed.

Update

I received the following email today. I have informed them that we never received the proxy instructions, but that we would have voted for installing a wall in unit 4215.
--bp

"Dear Virgin Grand Villas Owner:

As you know, the Annual Meeting of the Members of Virgin Grand Villas - St. John Condominium Owners Association was held on March 3, 2014. During the meeting there was a vote regarding the construction of a permanent wall to replace the accordion dividing wall in the upstairs bedrooms of the villas in Buildings 41 and 42. Only owners in Buildings 41 and 42 participated in the voting process and the votes were tabulated for each individual villa. The results were very much in favor of constructing a permanent wall. Specifically, the “no” votes against the project totaled only five. Overall, 73.8% of all owners in Buildings 41 and 42 voted in favor of constructing a permanent wall. Of the owners voting, 467 voted in favor and 5 voted against. There were 161 owners that did not participate in the voting process. The voting results for your villa #4215 were as follows: 40 in favor and 0 opposed. There were 18 owners in your villa that did not participate in the vote.

Our records indicate that we did not receive your proxy vote for this meeting. Accordingly, your Association’s Board of Directors requested that we contact you to obtain additional information. Specifically, the Board is interested in knowing the reason why you did not participate in the voting process. The Board would also like to know what they can do to eliminate any reservations you may have with regard to the construction of a permanent wall. We kindly ask that you provide us with this information by simply replying to this email. We are happy to answer any questions you may have in regard to this matter.

Your response by March 28, 2014 is greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

SVO Board Relations Team

On behalf of the Virgin Grand Villas Board of Directors


Donna E. Broadbent

Board Relations Specialist

t 407 418 7326 F 407 418 7203

Starwood vacation ownership
9002 san marco court
orlando, fl 32819

UNITED STATES"

Well, it looks like the resort wants to get the walls built and are going out of the way to get the 100% needed to get it done. Good for them and you.

For the units I think this gets the units to a 'True' 3 Bedroom for deposit and trading etc so is a benefit for everyone. Not that there is much trading of WSJ units done.

It will also improve the sound transmission between the spaces.

Bob - please tell them because their database is out of date and archaic, and they should confirm the address, email and phone numbers of all owners who did not respond. Not sure why they seem surprised that they had some Owners who didn't vote - didn't surprise anyone else.

If I were looking - I would not buy a 3Bd pool villa in B41 or B42 because of the funky wall. Looking at the voting - it seems that a vast majority of B41/B42 Owners agree they would like a solid wall. To me - a solid wall would be a capital improvement that would increase the value of these villas.

What I am missing from the letter is what the decision was? Would it matter if to the vote if you were to contact them? Did they need 100% voting and/or 100% approval? does this hold per building or villa ?
I would be curious to what their responses would be.

Follow-up (from the recent letter to Virgin Grand villa owners)

Here is the relevant section from the the email I received a few moments ago from our 2 representatives on the board of directors:

"THE VOTE ON BUILDINGS 41 AND 42

Owners in buildings 41 and 42 received a ballot this year on which they could indicate whether they opposed or did not oppose the construction of a permanent wall to separate the single large upstairs bedroom in their units into two separate bedrooms, at no cost to them. Under the bylaws, such a wall could be constructed in a unit only if all owners of that particular unit affirmatively agreed to such construction.

Owners of 466 unit weeks voted "yes," and only five voted "no." Unfortunately, those five were from owners of five separate units, so no wall can be constructed in units 4111, 4112, 4113, 4114 and 4214. In the other seven units in those two buildings, there were no negative votes, but in each of those units, not all owners voted. Because construction requires the affirmative approval of all owners, no wall can be constructed in the other units either, but the management company has undertaken to contact the 162 non-voting owners by email to find out whether they oppose construction or just didn't bother to vote on the issue. If you are such an owner, please respond to management's inquiry, and please do not oppose construction lightly, because, as you can see, owners of these units overwhelmingly support the building of a wall. (If you are one of the five owners who voted "no" and you change your mind in view of this report, please send one of us an email to that effect)."

--bp

"The voting results for your villa #4215 were as follows: 40 in favor and 0 opposed. There were 18 owners in your villa that did not participate in the vote."

I'm a little confused, I don't own at WSJ, just curious...but by my math, 40+18=58, did they actually sell 58 weeks for a single unit? If so, that explains why it is so hard to get a reservation..

~25% votes (162/629) are missing - doesn't surprised me.
I bet some of those VOIs sit in probate court (and such), and family members (e.g.) that are not even on the deed cannot be found to take accountability for them (or want to).

LobsterHunter said:

"The voting results for your villa #4215 were as follows: 40 in favor and 0 opposed. There were 18 owners in your villa that did not participate in the vote."

I'm a little confused, I don't own at WSJ, just curious...but by my math, 40+18=58, did they actually sell 58 weeks for a single unit? If so, that explains why it is so hard to get a reservation..

Click to expand...

I was curious about that as well - as there are many multi-week owners - they must mean VOIs. Also, WSJ-SVO own a high-percentage.

They are 52 weeks (53rd doesn't count), x 2 buildings x 6 villas per building = 624 VOIs. Yet, they account for 629 VOIs in the letter - how do they get an odd number since the number is multiplied by an even number?

Some VOIs were sold as months (back in the day when SVO took over), but that would account for even fewer VOIs. Curious...

Oops - I forgot about EOY owners - that mucks it up.

^ exactly, double down on some EOY VOIs, remove some VOIs because of the month owners and only SVO / HOA has a real clue about who owns what.

I wonder how many of those votes are SVO themselves (one owner)

As an aside, I saw one of those for sale and was curious about that, seems the months rotate around the season? Jan/Feb/Mar rotate a circle?) Interesting ownership strategy. Anyhoo...

Why on earth would anybody vote "no" to constructing a real wall between the bedrooms?

okwiater said:

Why on earth would anybody vote "no" to constructing a real wall between the bedrooms?

Click to expand...

Some people may like the feel of one big open room rather than two smaller ones is one possible reason.

Someone who only exchanges and never visits may not want the HOA to spend the money on the change is another possible reason.

I'm not saying they're good reasons, just possibilities.