Select Board weighs closure, renovation or scaled rebuild of Our Island Home after failed town‑meeting vote

Town administration presented four high‑level pathways for the future of Our Island Home (OIH) after an annual town meeting vote failed to reach the two‑thirds threshold required for project approval, though a subsequent ballot question passed.

Deputy Town Manager Rick Sears summarized options the town has vetted so far: close the facility and relocate residents under Department of Public Health (DPH) rules; renovate the current building at its existing site; pursue a reduced‑scope rebuild at Sherburne Commons with cost‑saving modifications; or return to a full redesign at Sherburne Commons and reframe the project for future consideration.

Sears emphasized the work remains preliminary: "This is very preliminary," he said, noting each option carries significant tradeoffs and that detailed financial analyses remain to be done. He said staff would not recommend closure unless it proved unavoidable, and described closure as an arduous regulatory and logistical process under DPH rules that would require a relocation plan and could trigger legal and political challenges.

Under a closure plan the town would submit a notice and then has 120 days (with a possible 60‑day extension in remote cases) for residents to vacate once the DPH accepts the relocation plan, the presentation said. Bob Eisenstein, a consultant, told the board that closures done elsewhere have typically required extensive family counseling, relocation assistance and state oversight and can be prolonged if families resist.

Renovation of the existing building would avoid new construction but would likely deliver fewer beds, require expensive code upgrades (including bringing the full structure into current code where altered), and still leave the town with a shorter useful life and coastal‑resilience concerns. A modified rebuild at Sherburne Commons — the town’s prior plan — could cut costs by eliminating one wing, dropping rooftop solar and reducing basement storage, potentially saving an estimated $19 million in preliminary figures; the town cautioned the estimate is preliminary and would require rebidding and further vetting.

Sears flagged a key tradeoff: fewer beds reduce construction costs now but also reduce future revenue streams, which can increase the ongoing subsidy the town must provide. Peter Holden and architect Craig Piper showed that removing the lower‑right wing would reduce planned beds from 45 to either 31 (all singles) or a mixed layout with 39 beds (eight doubles plus 23 singles). The town noted decreased storage and fewer rehab beds would also reduce program revenue.

Public commenters strongly disagreed on direction. Campbell Sutton, a longtime resident, said the town should not take only partial steps: "If you're not gonna do the right thing, don't do half the thing," he said. Amy Eldridge and others expressed tax and affordability concerns and asked for better cost mitigation. Multiple speakers urged the board to explore selling the current OIH site to the Nantucket Land Bank as one offset to project cost.

Select Board members asked administration to open a preliminary discussion with the Land Bank to learn whether the bank would consider purchasing the existing OIH parcel — with the caveat that the Land Bank would pay fair‑market value and any sale would require town‑meeting authorization to dispose of the municipal asset. Several board members also asked staff to prepare further financial modeling on operating impacts of smaller versus larger bed counts and to present clearer cost‑reduction tradeoffs.

The board did not adopt a final policy direction or take a vote on funding at the June 11 meeting. Staff left with direction to (1) open discussions with the Land Bank, (2) circulate possible survey or public‑forum approaches to gauge community appetite for tradeoffs if a sale were used to offset project cost, and (3) if directed at a later time, prepare more detailed financial analysis of operating subsidies, bid alternates (including the option to bid the wing as an alternate), and the timing for possible rebids or future town‑meeting consideration.