The Advisory Committee of Nonvoting Taxpayers of Nantucket, a nonvoting town advisory panel, voted unanimously at its March 1 meeting to support the Capital Program/Finance Committee's recommendation regarding Article 13 on the annual town meeting warrant — the proposed appropriation to construct a new Our Island Home skilled nursing and long-term care facility at Sherburne Commons.

The motion approved by the advisory committee said the panel supports the capital committee's position and asked for a more thorough, publicly available financial analysis before the town proceeds to any borrowing or a Proposition 2andone-half debt-exclusion ballot question. Peter Halley, chairman of the advisory committee, opened the discussion by saying the committee's purpose is “to arrive at a decision ... whether or not we should use our voice, and if so, how to use it.”

Why this matters: Article 13 would authorize borrowing for design, permitting, construction and related costs for a new Our Island Home at 40 Sherburne Commons Lane, contingent on a townwide Proposition 2andone-half debt-exclusion vote. Committee members said the size of the proposed capital outlay and the town's long-term debt exposure could impose substantial and enduring tax increases on nonresident taxpayers, who comprise a large share of Nantucket property owners but do not vote in local elections.

Committee members highlighted gaps in the public financial materials shared so far. Several speakers, including Peter Kahn and Scott Ulm, said the finance committee's public discussion lacked detailed modeling of risks, operating shortfalls and taxpayer-level impacts. Kahn said he had watched the finance committee meeting and found little in the way of rigorous financial analysis; Scott Ulm warned that projected annual debt service and operating losses "in the 16 to 17 million-dollar range," if accurate, would materially affect the town's debt capacity and resilience.

Speakers also noted specifics that are not yet clearly disclosed in available materials: the project cost estimates cited in public presentations are not final (design bids were expected back in mid-March), the current plan preserves the town's waterfront Old Island Home site rather than selling it, and the facility now serves many long-term residents (not solely short-term rehab patients). Pam Swan, who described the island home's long history, said "moving it is a good idea. Keeping something on the island is a good idea," but also cautioned against appearing solely obstructionist.

Financial and program details raised in the meeting included:
- Projected capital and operating figures discussed publicly ranged widely; members referenced previously cited estimates and cautioned that current numbers are preliminary and that final construction bids were due weeks before the town meeting.
- Several members said the presentation did not clearly model federal reimbursements: one participant cited U.S. personal health care share estimates (Medicaid ~17.1% and Medicare ~23% in a cited CDC dataset) and warned that cuts or changes to federal reimbursement would increase local shortfalls.
- The facility has 45 licensed beds; speakers emphasized bed counts do not equal year-round census (occupancy fluctuates), and the institution provides both short-term rehabilitation and long-term dementia care.

The committee's formal action and next steps: The advisory committee passed a motion (seconded by committee member Gary Biller) to publicly align with the capital committee's recommendation and to request additional, detailed financial analysis. The committee instructed its chair to draft a short letter for circulation and delivery to the select board and to prepare to present the committee's view at an upcoming joint meeting of FinCom, the planning board and the select board on March 13. The chair set a drafting target of about March 10 for a circulating text and asked members to supply factual clarifications rather than opinion.

Context and alternatives discussed: Members urged exploration of alternatives to a large town-financed build. Suggestions included:
- Seeking private or nonprofit partnership/ownership models on Sherburne Commons to host a mixed residential campus with an attached skilled nursing component (members referenced private senior living models that include on-site skilled care).
- Phasing or resizing the design to meet Medicare/Medicaid certification standards without "Taj Mahal" design costs.
- Increased reliance on philanthropy and private fundraising (members cited the hospital's fundraising model) before committing town borrowing.

Committee members stressed process concerns as well: several speakers said the town's capital planning and the financial review of major projects lack analytical rigor and public clarity. They urged the select board and finance committee to make underlying cost assumptions and risk models public so voters can assess tax and debt consequences before any ballot debt-exclusion question.

What the committee did not decide: The advisory committee did not vote to oppose the warrant article explicitly on policy grounds; instead it recorded support for the capital committee's recommendation and demanded more transparent fiscal analysis and public information before the debt-exclusion ballot. The committee also did not prescribe a final public campaign position for the ballot; members said they would consider outreach, letters and a short public statement drafted for the select board packet and public comment opportunities leading up to town meeting and the subsequent ballot.

Looking ahead: The advisory committee plans to circulate a draft position letter by about March 10, to request placement in the select board packet, and to present at the March 13 joint meeting. Members signaled they may coordinate with finance committee members who have publicly opposed the current plan and with other community stakeholders to push for alternative financing, scale, or ownership models.

Ending note: Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as both moral and financial: while many said they value local long-term care options, they argued taxpayers deserve a clear, conservative accounting of capital costs, operating deficits and who will carry the financial burden before the town commits to large long-term debt.