Vet center site contenders narrowed to 3
After meeting for nine hours behind closed doors Tuesday, the Oklahoma Veterans Commission narrowed from six to three the number of eastern Oklahoma cities being considered for the site of a new veterans center.
Commissioners met from 8:15 a.m. to about 5:15 p.m. in executive session as they pondered, analyzed and discussed the six cities at a table stacked high with thick black binders. They returned briefly from executive session to announce Poteau, Sallisaw and Muskogee remain in contention, eliminating Holdenville, Hugo and McAlester.
Commissioners now will tour the three remaining proposed sites and meet again in a month to discuss their findings. The commission voted unanimously to call a special meeting on Oct. 26 for that purpose.
Some commissioners seemed exhausted by the lengthy meeting,
which followed a sevenhour meeting Monday. Commissioners had lunch in the meeting room, took breaks to smoke cigarettes and paced the sidewalk outside. One took his shoes off to get comfortable.
Representatives from several cities waited in the agency’s lobby throughout the day, passing the time on their phones or in friendly conversations as the TVran on mute in the background. The representatives questioned commissioners about their progress as they passed through the lobby, receiving updates in bits and pieces.
Commissioner Jerry Ball informed those waiting at 1:15 p.m. that there would not be a final decision Tuesday but said there had been talk among commissioners of narrowing the applicant pool to two and making a final decision in October. At 3:30 p.m., Commissioner Pat Fite told those in the lobby that commissioners had rated all proposals and would spend the following hours comparing their ratings.
Ten minutes later, Commissioner Larry Van Schuyver passed through and said he and his fellow commissioners will visit proposed sites before making a decision. “It’s probably going to be a severalweek process,” he said.
Under legislation signed in the spring, the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs was granted authority to close the Talihina Veterans Center, much to the chagrin of those in Talihina, and construct a new site within 90 miles or two hours of the Talihina center.
The state operates seven such centers.
Six cities made pitches Monday afternoon to the Veterans Commission, which oversees Veterans Affairs. They were each given 10 minutes to make a presentation before fielding questions from commissioners, who homed in on existing medical facilities in each city and the suitability of sites.
Small cities like Holdenville and Sallisaw touted their friendly, patriotic ways and promised their communities would rally around a new center and the veterans who would fill it. Hugo offered an existing 60-bed facility for purchase by Veterans Affairs, likely making it the most affordable option for the state. Poteau touted its proximity to Talihina.
“The property is actually less than 40 miles from the existing facility at Talihina, which will enable us to continue on with the employees that you have there, or at least the biggest majority of them,” said Poteau Mayor Jeff Shockley, who was among those waiting in the lobby Tuesday.
McAlester and Muskogee offered the benefits of larger cities: an array of existing health care facilities, colleges and the presence of veterans groups.
“We’ve got a great, willing, ready, large workforce and we’re ready to get to work,” said Muskogee Mayor Bob Coburn.
The three cities chosen — Poteau, Sallisaw and Muskogee — expressed early interest in being home to a veterans center. In August, representatives from the three cities toured a state veterans center in Lawton to better understand what would be expected of their cities.
The six proposals were judged on the availability of a health care workforce in the city, the quality of the proposed property, economic indicators, the ability to transfer operations from Talihina, and price, according to the state’s formal request for proposals.
Bonus points were offered for existing properties on the site and “activities that contribute to veterans’ quality of life,” such as recreation, shopping and dining options. Proposals were given a score based on an established state formula.