A Better Plan

We're ready to help CSA find the money needed to sustain Sea Pines as a first-rate community. In fact, we are offering a thorough budgetary answer − and one that does not put almost the entire burden on residential property owners (RPOs). CSA has proposed a plan that would fall 95% on the backs of us RPOs, and that would be on top of what many informed homeowners believe is an already unfair burden that RPOs pay under current CSA practices and governing policy.  

Many have asked, “If you don’t like CSA’s budget what is your plan to solve the problem?”  That’s a fair question.  On Monday of this week, Alliance made available to CSA a detailed plan that was the result of an extensive review and evaluation by accomplished financial professionals based on data and information provided directly from CSA.  We commend the CSA staff for working professionally and cooperatively with our team.  

For those interested, the Executive Summary  and the full Alliance Financial Plan can be viewed on our website.  

Click here to view the Executive Summary.

Click here to view the detailed Alliance Financial Plan.

For your convenience, we have described the approach behind the Alliance Financial Plan and briefly summarized its key advantages in comparison to the CSA budget. 

The foundation of the Alliance Financial Plan is the philosophy that balancing the CSA budget and identifying the sources of new revenue should be based on four simple principles:

  1. Equal treatment of rental properties between residential and commercial property owners
  2. Enforcement of the existing covenants pertaining to gate fees and assessments
  3. Financial obligations should be matched proportionally with those benefiting from the expense
  4. Short-term problems should not be funded by permanent tax increases.

We believe that our resulting budget faithfully and fairly reflects these principles. Below, is a summary of the critical things the Alliance budget accomplishes and avoids:

  • Balances the CSA budget
  • Fully funds CSA long-term budgeted infrastructure needs
  • Provides an additional $500K annually for CSA unbudgeted items
  • Adds $1.2 million annually to fund the deferred hydrology and stormwater maintenance
  • Accepts a 50/50 cost sharing between RPO/Commercial interests for the approximate $900K annual trolley expenses for 2019-2023
  • Fully funds the planned $4.0 million gate improvements
  • Eliminates the proposed Real Estate Transfer Tax
  • Eliminates the need for the $300 permanent increase in the base RPO annual assessment
  • Adopts a 3-year, $250 annual special assessment on RPO’s
  • Adopts a 3-year special assessment on Commercial properties (CPO’s) at the same percentage as the RPO assessment
  • More adequately funds the reserve accounts to the 40% level, which was highly recommended by the financial consultant retained by CSA to study our Reserves

We invite all Sea Pines owners to review the Alliance Financial Plan and judge for themselves.  We absolutely believe it is both fairer to RPO’s and far more realistic. The CSA plan will never achieve the 75% level of residential owner support necessary to pass a referendum.  No level of public relations can turn a pumpkin into a princess. 

Everyone wants to ensure CSA has the financial resources to build, maintain and provide the infrastructure and services that reflect a world-class community.  However, it requires a strategy and approach that is different than the course presently being pursued.  Negotiation and compromise is the only way to get there.

Judge for Yourself


Richard Matthews, ASPPPO Board Member


On Thursday morning, the majority of ASPPPO board members voted to censure fellow member Dick Matthews.  They said he had "insulted" them unacceptably and was disrupting the community by -- as an ASPPPO director -- voicing criticism of their recent board actions and inactions.  

Judge for yourself.  Click here to view a video that Matthews recorded before yesterday's meeting.  It concerns secrecy and appropriate governance of Sea Pines.

This is the second video in a four-part series of short videos about the disconnect between Sea Pines residential property owners and the ASPPPO and CSA boards. Click here to view the first video. 

Click Here or the Picture

The Sea Pines Times

What’s the Rush?


The artificial deadline for comments on the proposed ASPPPO bylaw changes has come and gone – 6 p.m. today (Tuesday 9/11/2018).

We wonder: Why the rush? Why is it so critical that the ASPPPO Board vote on this matter on September 20? The full membership won’t vote on the bylaw changes until the annual meeting next spring.

Isn’t it in our best interests to allow a much longer comment period so members have the time to fully consider the impact of the significant changes recommended by the committee and Charlie Miner? What’s the rush?

Below are the comments from Alliance that were submitted to the designated feedback site prior to the deadline.

What CSA Doesn’t Tell You

Richard Matthews, ASPPPO Board Member

Please click here or on the above image to view the first in a four-part series of short videos about the disconnect between Sea Pines residential property owners and those we have elected to represent us on the ASPPPO and CSA boards.

The consistent and timely flow of information from CSA staff regarding Hurricane Florence (and its predecessors Irma and Matthew) should be used as a model for how the CSA board communicates with homeowners.

Despite paying a marketing firm tens of thousands of dollars a year to craft cheerful, obtuse communications, the CSA board often leaves residential property owners in the dark. Critical information is often incomplete or absent altogether.
The new videos show how homeowners are simply not represented appropriately. The link above will take you to a reasonable discussion of CSA secrets, financial specifics, how homeowners lost out in the new gate agreement – and what can be done now.

FACT CHECK:  In a subsequent email, we will provide information to substantiate the significant amount of gate revenue that is diverted to cover costs for the trolley.