Non‑Voting Taxpayers’ Advisory Committee urges alternative approach to Our Island Home rebuild ahead of town meeting

The Advisory Committee of Non‑Voting Taxpayers on April 11 urged town leaders to reconsider the current proposal to rebuild Our Island Home, saying the plan’s estimated capital and operating costs risk overburdening the tax base.

Chair Peter Halley said the committee continues to “think that there are other alternatives that need to be looked at” and recommended sending a concise, sensitive statement to the select board ahead of the May town meeting. The committee voted to reiterate its position from last year, asking that alternatives and longer‑term affordability be explored.

Why it matters: The warrant includes Article 11, a debt authorization and borrowing plan tied to the proposed OIH project, and the town has publicly estimated roughly $119–126 million in borrowing and up to $126 million in total authorization for a new facility on Sherburne Commons. Committee members and FinCom materials circulated to the group show the town currently subsidizes the OIH operating deficit by about $5 million per year; pro forma projections presented to the committee suggest operating losses could rise toward roughly $8.5 million annually within a decade under the current design.

During the meeting, several members compared Nantucket’s proposal to a recent Martha’s Vineyard facility. “They completed a rehab facility . . . for about $68 million, which comes out to about $1.2 million per bed,” one member noted; by contrast, the figures discussed for Nantucket would be roughly $2.8 million per bed, prompting repeated questions about scope, site choice and financing assumptions.

Not all of the difference can be attributed to one factor, committee members and FinCom chair Jill said: licensing and programmatic differences, the choice of site at Sherburne Commons (which carries site‑specific costs), and the town‑run model change how a project is scoped and paid for. Jill, who leads the town’s finance and capital program committees, told the group that “there are different rules” and reminded members that financing sources and regulatory requirements can make public projects more expensive than some private models.

Public testimony added urgency and a human dimension: a part‑time resident who identified herself as Virginia described repeatedly transporting family members off‑island for care and said it is “unimaginable to be stuck as a resident on the island and take care of a parent off island.” That perspective reinforced members’ acknowledgement of community need, even as they stressed fiscal caution.

Alternatives discussed included: seeking private donations or nonprofit partnership models, investigating modular or continuing‑care community designs, maintaining funding for off‑island care as a subsidized option, and reviewing eligibility for federal financing programs (members raised a USDA loan used in another island project). Several members suggested a focused fundraising campaign or engaging foundations and private donors as part of a hybrid financing solution.

What the committee said it will do: By vote the group instructed the chair to prepare a short letter to the select board, reiterating last year’s concerns while acknowledging the community need and urging that the select board and project proponents further review alternatives and affordability before the town meeting. Several members also encouraged careful, sensitive public messaging and suggested the committee consider making a brief statement at town meeting through a designated speaker.

Next steps: The town meeting is scheduled for early May; the committee plans to finalize its statement and distribute it to the select board and, where appropriate, to the finance and capital committees. The ultimate decision on Article 11 rests with town voters.