Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Our Island Home topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nantucket's Our Island Home plan stalls after town meeting; committee volunteers to gather options
Summary
A proposed $125 million replacement for the Our Island Home failed to secure the required two‑thirds approval at town meeting and on the ballot; ACNVT members volunteered to form an information‑gathering group to review alternatives, costs and funding options, including modular construction and federal loans.
A proposed $125 million plan to replace Nantucket’s Our Island Home failed to secure the two‑thirds majority needed at the town meeting and later on the ballot, and the project’s future is now uncertain, Advisory Committee for Nonvoting Taxpayers members said at their June 7 meeting.
Why it matters: Committee members said the proposed cost — described repeatedly as “enormous” at public meetings — and concerns about moving a long‑standing town facility off its current site drove opposition. Members also noted that operating funding partly depends on Medicaid and that federal budget uncertainties could affect long‑term operating support.
Funding and design alternatives discussed: Jean Briskman and other members pointed to a Martha’s Vineyard project with about 70 beds built at roughly half the per‑bed cost, funded in part by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan of about $30 million and delivered as five separate modular buildings. ACNVT members discussed exploring private financing, naming‑opportunity fundraising, modular construction, and the possibility of renovating the existing facility to extend its useful life as less‑expensive alternatives to the original plan.
Eligibility and admissions questions: Committee members raised whether Nantucket residents would have priority admission. An administrator’s written reply, circulated to ACNVT members, stated that under Medicaid rules the facility must be open to all eligible persons, including nonresidents; ACNVT members said that rules therefore do not guarantee local priority for beds.
Committee response and next steps: ACNVT members debated whether to form a subcommittee to gather information, analyze lower‑cost models, and identify funding sources. Volunteers — Don, Jean Briskman, Donna, Michael Cody and others — agreed to pursue a fact‑finding approach and to check the existing governance and who “calls the shots” at the town level (the select board and Our Island Home governance were identified as leads). Peter Halley, ACNVT chair, advised that the select board planned to take up the issue at its June 11 meeting and that ACNVT would monitor and offer advice as requested.
Ending: ACNVT members agreed the committee’s role is advisory and that gathering factual information — project cost drivers, renovation cost estimates, funding sources and operational projections — would produce the most useful input for town leaders considering next steps.
