Updating requirements for filing fee and annual fee
Summary
Senate Bill 734 updates the West Virginia Real Estate Time-Sharing Act by revising the filing fee for a developer’s public offering statement and the annual fee paid for each time-share period. Under the bill, the initial filing fee would change from a per-period charge of 50 cents to a base fee of $500 plus $1 per time-share period, capped at $1,500 total. The bill also changes the fee for filing a material change to the public offering statement to $250, but only when inventory is being added. In addition, the annual fee collected by the managing entity and paid to the division would increase from 50 cents per time-share period to $500 per time-share period, as written in the bill text.
The measure leaves the broader disclosure and approval framework for public offering statements intact. Developers would still be required to file detailed offering statements covering ownership structure, cancellation rights, title status, insurance, exchange programs, governing documents, contracts, restrictions, and other material information. The division’s review timelines and deemed-approval provisions also remain in place, as do the requirements for amendments to offering statements and the content disclosures for fee-simple time-sharing plans.
Impact
SB734 amends two sections of the West Virginia Code governing time-share development and administration, specifically §36-9-6 and §36-9-24. Its practical effect is to change the cost structure for developers and managing entities interacting with the state division by increasing the filing fee and annual fee provisions tied to time-share plans. The bill does not materially alter consumer disclosure obligations, approval procedures, or substantive rights under the Time-Sharing Act, but it does affect the financial obligations associated with registering and maintaining time-share plans in West Virginia.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is administrative and technical in nature, focused on updating fee amounts rather than changing policy direction. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support is documented here. The bill’s caption and stated purpose indicate a straightforward fee update, which typically draws limited controversy unless stakeholders object to the size or structure of the increase.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the fee increase itself, particularly the shift from a small per-period filing charge to a larger base fee plus per-period amount, and the annual fee increase for each time-share period. Developers and managing entities would bear the direct cost impact, while the state division would benefit from increased fee revenue. Because the bill does not change disclosure rules or purchaser protections, any debate would likely center on whether the revised fees are justified and how they affect the time-share industry rather than on consumer protection policy.