HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail Chain OIH 12_19_16From:Libby Gibson
To:"VIRGINIA ANDREWS"
Subject:RE: Letter from Bob Ford
Date:Monday, December 19, 2016 8:51:00 AM
Ginger: thank you for taking the time to send this email. Bob is currently away for the holidays & he may or may
not wish to attend a Work Group meeting in January. Quite frankly, I don’t know if he’ll want to given the tone of
how his assistance has been characterized. Please see below for a few responses to your questions/comments.
Ginger, your dedication to this project is appreciated even if we might disagree about it. While we have different
perspectives on it, I think there is no question that all of us are working toward a facility that appropriately takes
care of our senior residents who need special care. I hope you have a nice holiday as well.
C. Elizabeth Gibson
Town Manager
Town of Nantucket
(508) 228-7255
From: VIRGINIA ANDREWS [mailto:gingernantucket@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 10:17 AMTo: Libby GibsonSubject: RE: Letter from Bob Ford
Dear Libby,
I think-- and I speak only for myself-- that it is not mistrust of town government per se that sent me to thiswork group. After all, I have been, in whatever small way, a part of that government when I was on theConservation Commission. I didn't know about Mr. Ford's website, but I'd be delighted if he could attend the
work-group meetings, and I'm going to suggest it to Fran. I think that would be a great aid to transparency allround. Certainly no one questions the need for action.
As you know, I'm very attached to the site of the present OIH. And I felt somewhat shouted down at
previous public forums, which lacked the time for meaningful back and forth discussion. I just want tounderstand WHY it has to move, in excruciating detail. So for me it's more a question of separating factfrom opinion on the part of the consultants who provided the answers. I've had a lot of experience in keepingold things in their original form, and one engineer's "impossible, tear it down" may turn out to be anothers"these are the steps needed to accomplish Y vs. X" So what I want to know is, did the committee(s) who
consulted them ask the right questions? I’m not sure how to respond to this. Town Administration andthe Board of Selectmen feel that the consultants did what was requested. No one has disputed that thebuilding “can’t” be rebuilt where it is; however, it would be extremely costly and difficult given thesize of the current site and in order to maintain current operations. The way a question is asked often
influences the answer, as you so rightly pointed out.
For example, did the committee ask for a detailed evaluation of ways to work with the existing building onthe existing site WITHOUT disturbing the residents? Apparently not as detailed as the Work Groupwould like -- because of the cost and the logistics involved. If I recall correctly Rachel said that
previously, when they did work on the nurses station it was very disruptive, which I can well believe as thatis the center of everything at the present OIH. But they did somehow manage to build the dining hall, whichhas been a great asset. With all due respect, these two projects are not comparable to the constructionof a new facility.
The present plant is in such dire need that a lot of $ will have to be spent just while the details, funding, and
permitting of the new one are worked out. Is that all just going to be wasted as soon as the current building isdemolished? The current building’s future has not been determined. No one has said it will bedemolished. The new one is going to be a huge up-front expense; is there any way to address the buildingissues by working wing to wing as I believe was the intent of the original design? I’m sure that thearchitect can address these issues when he attends a Work Group meeting Would it be a financialadvantage to spread those costs out over time? For example, if a new entrance access were relocated to thesouth side nest to the kitchen with, say, a covered drive-through area such as Falmouth Toyota has, it would
be much more protected from the NW wind which blasts in the double doors of the present entrance. As it isthe heating system has to cope with that icy blast every time someone goes in or out.
Another question relates to the use of storm surge vs. flood plain standards to ID the least risky site. I'm still
grappling with that as it doesn't seem to me to take into account the erosion rate of the south shore at one endor the Miacomet watershed on the other. If we are talking cat 5 hurricane, what guarantee to we have it won'tcome from the SW? The architect can address this directly with the Work Group I have to say, therelocation of the finance Dept to the old laundromat site (previously the office of the Con Com) did notinspire me with a great deal of confidence in the opinions of consultants. The relocation of the Financeoffices was not a recommendation of any consultants. It was a recommendation of TownAdministration in order to temporarily address severe space limitations. It’s easy to judge decisionswhen you do not have complete information. The buildings on Washington st. are on filled land whichwas formerly marsh and have already suffered flooding from rather modest storm surges, but this is quite
predictable given their history. The current OIH site is high enough that I wonder if there would be any placeto which TO evacuate in the event of a 12 foot surge? It is protected by a salt marsh. And unlike Long IslandSound, Nantucket Sound is not a closed system. Coatue, which acts as a barrier beach for the harbor, issignificantly lower than the site, so beyond a lower point it would not be an effective empoundment forsurge water. So that is also a comparison that needs evaluation I think.
Anyway, please forgive the long email and have a good holiday.
Ginger
On December 14, 2016 at 4:23 PM Libby Gibson <LGibson@nantucket-ma.gov> wrote:
Georgia – I appreciate the clarification, thank you. It seems that there is quite of bit of suspicion about
this entire project – I get that people are often suspicious of government. I’ve been trying to find out
and understand what facts there are that the work group members and others are relying on for many
of the comments I am seeing and hearing about – but I’m still not sure what they are. In any case,
please see my responses below regarding your email.
C. Elizabeth Gibson
Town Manager
Town of Nantucket
(508) 228-7255
From: Georgia Ann Snell [mailto:snellhotel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:31 AMTo: Libby GibsonCc: Frances Karttunen; Rachel Day; cliffack@yahoo.com; Dawn Hill Holdgate; Tim and Kate Soverino;Alison K Forsgren; VIRGINIA; Julie FitzgeraldSubject: Re: Letter from Bob Ford
Hi Libby, I think we felt that it was premature ... and no
one on the Work Group as far as I knew were aware of Mr.
Ford's letter until it was brought up by a local citizen at
our meeting. His letter is pretty specific, which certainly
seems like the final decision of the BOS has already been
made. Perhaps this is where there is a
“disconnect” somehow: on May 4, 2016, the
Board of Selectmen voted, unanimously – at a
public meeting – to proceed with moving Our
Island Home to the Sherburne Commons site; and
to construct a new 40-bed facility following the
“Small House” model. Please click here and
watch the discussion starting at 44 minutes in,
click here to view and ends on a 2nd video 19
minutes in, click here to see this video.
The Board of Selectmen has made a decision –
publicly, not in secret. At the first meeting of the
Work Group, I made note of this decision; and,
that the Board would be proceeding with
planning for the facility concurrent with the
Work Group. It is the job of Town
Administration to implement decisions of the
Board, this is one, and we are working to
implement it. At the May 4, 2016 meeting, after
the Board’s vote, I was asked to review next
steps, which I did, see below – this was in the
Agenda Packet http://nantucket-
ma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/05042016-
3722
Next Steps
Board of Selectmen decision on site (which was
decided 5-0 to be Sherburne Commons)
Public outreach
Development of warrant article(s) for fall Special
Town Meeting*
Site preparation and negotiations with Land Bank
or others to secure area needed
Determination of Need through Mass.
Department of Public Health
Development of alternative care model details (ie,
staffing, costs, regulatory requirements, etc)
Develop RFP for professional services to assist
with financial forecasting for alternative care
model
*it was later determined that this would be done
for 2017 Annual Town Meeting
· That may not have been his intent, but you can
understand how it came across to us who are trying to
make more public the needs of a new nursing home, what
style to use and where it will be located. Nor did we know
or at least I was unaware of the website Mr. Ford
established. The existence of the website also came
up at the first meeting – one of the Work Group
members asked about it and I explained it. Again,
Mr. Ford’s assistance was solicited well before the
Work Group ever came about – he is doing just
what we asked/he offered to do. He is a private
citizen and is helping us on his own time and his
own “dime”. It has been suggested repeatedly
over the years to utilize the professional expertise
of our local citizens when possible – this was a
good opportunity to do just that. Mr. Ford has
been very helpful with suggesting ways in which
to get information out about the project. At this
point, while we don’t have a link to his website on
the Town’s website we do have GenoTV interviews
of Human Services Director Rachel Day and also
an interview with Darcy Creech. Please see here
http://nantucket-ma.gov/749/Proposed-New-OIH
for these postings and others such as the OIH
Feasibility Study Presentation and the OIH Public
Forum at the Dreamland in November 2015.
I assume other people have known about it in Town
circles, and perhaps it has been spread by other vehicles?
Don't know. Just wanted you to hear from my perspective
how the letter Mr. Ford wrote seemed to those of us who
knew nothing about it. I have sent out an email to the
Interfaith Council members in light of the letter to update
them on what is going on ... that is the appointment of the
Work Group and what is trying to be accomplished.
Thanks, Libby, Georgia Ann
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Libby Gibson <LGibson@nantucket-ma.gov> wrote:
Fran: Are you asking a question? If so, it isn't clear from your email below. It sounds like fromwhat I've been told with posts on Facebook and comments at the Work Group meetingyesterday that there is a feeling from the Work Group and others that there is some kind of"secret campaign" the Town has embarked on with Bob Ford. Bob Ford is a local citizen who
approached me over a year ago with an offer to help with any Town projects in terms ofsupporting them in the community and helping to prepare and/or review letters and/or otherdocuments explaining the projects. At no charge. Volunteer effort. He helped prepare somedocuments for the Nantucket Harbor Shimmo Sewer project; and, around last June or July, I
asked him if he might consider helping with community outreach for Our Island Home --AFTER the Board of Selectmen voted to pursue constructing a new facility at SherburneCommons and BEFORE the Special Town Meeting that established the Work Group was evenscheduled. Regarding his letter, "spearhead" might be an overstatement but he offered to helpwith an important Town project, at no charge, he set up a website at his expense and printed up
the cards, at his expense. Is there a problem? It's certainly not a secret, he supports the projectthat the Board voted for and is willing to go talk to community groups about it.
C. Elizabeth GibsonTown Manager
Town of Nantucket(508) 228-7255
-----Original Message-----From: Frances Karttunen [mailto:karttu@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:00 PMTo: Libby Gibson; Rachel Day; cliffack@yahoo.com; Dawn Hill Holdgate; Tim and Kate
Soverino; Alison K Forsgren; VIRGINIA; Georgia Ann Snell; Julie FitzgeraldSubject: Letter from Bob Ford
Libby,
At the December 8 meeting of the OIH work group, a member of the public brought to the workgroup’s members’ attention a letter from Bob Ford to the Rev. Gary Klingsporn. This week a
member of the work group also had the letter, and the contents were made known to the group. In it Mr. Ford says he is writing at the request of Rachel and yourself to seek help for acampaign to carry forward specific plans for the future OIH and to enlist the pastors ofNantucket churches in forwarding this effort to influence voting at the April 1 Annual Town
Meeting.
According to Rachel, her sole interaction with Mr. Ford has been to meet with one group at hisrequest.
Display of laminated business cards advertising the website OIHFuture.com have beenpermitted at Our Island Home, however. We were assured that the website is strictly Mr. Ford’sand is not sponsored by the Town of Nantucket or Our Island Home.
Mr. Ford, in his letter, seems to state that he is acting on behalf of the town administrator and
the administrator of OIH.
The letter is attached to this message.
Frances KarttunenChair, OIH workgroup
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Frances Karttunen <karttu@comcast.net>To: Libby Gibson <LGibson@nantucket-ma.gov>, Rachel Day <RDay@nantucket-ma.gov>,
"cliffack@yahoo.com" <cliffack@yahoo.com>, Dawn Hill Holdgate<dhillholdgate@nantucket-ma.gov>, Tim and Kate Soverino <acksov@hotmail.com>, Alison KForsgren <alisonkforsgren@gmail.com>, VIRGINIA <gingernantucket@comcast.net>, GeorgiaAnn Snell <snellhotel@gmail.com>, Julie Fitzgerald <jfitzlaw@comcast.net>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:00:13 +0000Subject: Letter from Bob FordLibby,
At the December 8 meeting of the OIH work group, a member of the public brought to the workgroup’s members’ attention a letter from Bob Ford to the Rev. Gary Klingsporn. This week amember of the work group also had the letter, and the contents were made known to the group. In it Mr. Ford says he is writing at the request of Rachel and yourself to seek help for acampaign to carry forward specific plans for the future OIH and to enlist the pastors of
Nantucket churches in forwarding this effort to influence voting at the April 1 Annual TownMeeting.
According to Rachel, her sole interaction with Mr. Ford has been to meet with one group at his
request.
Display of laminated business cards advertising the website OIHFuture.com have beenpermitted at Our Island Home, however. We were assured that the website is strictly Mr. Ford’sand is not sponsored by the Town of Nantucket or Our Island Home.
Mr. Ford, in his letter, seems to state that he is acting on behalf of the town administrator and
the administrator of OIH.
The letter is attached to this message.
Frances KarttunenChair, OIH workgroup