This spreadsheet shows the individual votes of each member of the 9-1-1 commission on each of the properties they rated for the location of the dispatch center to be built in Saline County.

The next question to be settled is how much, if anything, will be spent to acquire the property.

Where the center would be located has been the subject of much interest in the months since the commission was appointed following approval of a sales tax to fund the center.

A decision on the issue was deferred by the appointed commission in favor of allowing an elected board to make the choice, but the commission did begin the process of site selection by inviting proposals from throughout the county in January. Deadline for submission of the proposals was set for the end of February.

Interest intensified after the April 8 election, when new members of the commission were elected to their current positions.

The current commission lineup includes Chairman John Fletcher of Marshall, Vice-Chairman John Rieves of Marshall, Jesse Coslet of Marshall, Corbin Allred of Marshall, Cindy Schroeder of Marshall, Jack Lenz of Marshall and Cathie Jefferies of Slater.

At the time the commission asked for proposals in January, it stipulated that an asking price for the properties submitted should not be included in the bid, on the advice of the board's attorney, Don Stouffer. The inclusion of price information in the bid would require the bids to be sealed. The commission opted for open proposals.

After the proposals were received, each commission member received an information sheet describing each of the sites in greater detail. Included with this information was a reference to whether each specific property could be expected to be available to the 9-1-1 organization "at no cost" or "would have a purchase price associated with it," although no actual prices were included.

This document caused some confusion among commission members about which properties were "free" and which were not. Rieves said Monday, May 5, that he believed information that the Marshall sites were to be donated was a "misinterpretation" when the document was put together.

"It's not prudent (for the commission) to insist that all the properties under consideration be free," he said. "The tax is paid by everyone in the county."

Marshall Mayor Connie Latimer echoed Rieve's position Monday, May 5.

"We were asked to submit only the information asked for on the proposal, which didn't include cost," she said. "There was never any intention to simply give the property away."

Two years ago, in another issue fraught with controversy, the city of Marshall paid just under $40,000 per acre for the land the commission chose for the 911 center. It's expected the center will need most of four acres. That means that as much as $160,000 of the tax money designated for the center could be spent just to acquire the land.

Fletcher said Tuesday, April 29, that he didn't know if the property was intended to be a donation. But Thursday, May 1, he said, "I assume there will be a cost. We had our first meeting with Mayor Latimer (Tuesday) to discuss the price."

In all, eight bids were received, three from the city of Marshall, one from the city of Slater, three others from private parties and one in Sweet Springs.

Marshall's offerings included one at the junction of Highway 240 and Route O; one in the Marshall Industrial Park, close to the junction of Highways 65 and 240; and one near the Martin Community Center/Nicholas-Beazley Aviation Museum.

The city of Slater offered a site at the city's industrial park. Their detailed proposal included the information that the land being offered was to be available to the board at no cost.

Sandy Hisle, representing Midwest Residential LLC proposed a site on Fairground Road across from the entrance to Fitzgibbon Hospital.

Steven Wansing, representing James Joseph Thompson, proposed a site on Route YY just past Atchison Avenue in Marshall.

Richard and Carol Pemberton proposed a site at the intersection of Highways 240 and 41, four miles east of Marshall.

Bruce Guier of Sweet Springs proposed the site of the former Sweet Springs Community Hospital at 701 Bridge Street.

Members of the 9-1-1 board visited each of the properties, except the site in Sweet Springs, on April 18.

Commission Chairman John Fletcher said the Sweet Springs site was dropped from consideration because most of the commission members felt the existing old hospital building on the property was not suitable for the dispatch center and that the cost of demolishing that building would be too high. Actual cost estimates for the demolition were not sought.

Following the site visits, each member of the commission used site selection criteria developed by the National Emergency Numbering Association, the same association whose standards were used to develop the name and numbering system used to establish 9-1-1 addresses throughout the county.

NENA's standards are divided into 10 criteria: accessibility to site, adequate space for site, attractive neighborhood profile, cost differentials, electrical power and utilities, facility development (if existing building), integrity of site, quality of life/amenities, security issues and telecommunications availability/access.

The 10 criteria are subdivided into smaller categories, 50 in all, each of which carries a weighting factor. The weighting factors are: 1 (desired), 2 (important) and 3 (critical). Each of the smaller category items is assigned a value from 1 through 5. Users of the standards are to rate each of the 50 weighted categories by the level at which each particular site meets the needs of the proposed center.

For example, under the criteria "adequate space for site," there are four categories, each of which carries a "weight" of 3 (critical). The categories are: growth flexibility, ample space for parking, ample space for buildings and ample space for docking facilities.

An explanation of each category is included with the standards. For example, under "ample space for parking," the explanation reads: "The ability of the facility/site to support multi-use parking, including public access, employee (controlled) access, secured/restricted areas (EOC, mobile command vehicles, etc.)."

A detailed copy of NENA's site selection criteria can be found at http://tinyurl.com/6qy3zq.

Rieves said he supported the use of NENA standards, but also said they "could have been more complete," adding that they were, in some areas, "easy to misinterpret."

Still, he said, the NENA standard was a reasonable choice, since there are few national guidelines.

At a closed meeting on April 28, by a vote of 5 to 2, the commission selected the Marshall site near the Martin Community Center as their choice for the dispatch center.

The following day, a commission-appointed committee, consisting of Fletcher, Rieves and Allred met with Latimer to negotiate with the city for the South Odell site.

For some in the community, the site choice was an obvious one; for others, it was quite controversial.

Fletcher is well aware there is at least some unrest about the decision to go with the Marshall site.

"Everybody has strong feelings, but ... I like the (Marshall) site as well as any of (the others)."

Referring to discontent being voiced from the city of Slater, he said, "I don't believe they were unfairly treated."

Judging from comments on The Marshall Democrat-News Web site, others in the community are not so sure.

It's clear from the scoring sheets that not every commission member rated every site.

Allred rated only three sites, all of them in Marshall. Coslet rated only five sites -- leaving out the Marshall Industrial Park site and the Pemberton and Sweet Springs properties.

Both Allred and Coslet were forthright about why they chose not to rate all the properties.

Only Fletcher and Schroeder rated the Sweet Springs site.

Allred said Friday, May 2, that the Slater location, north of the railroad tracks "didn't deserve a score," citing prevailing winds from the southwest and the fact that hazardous materials, including nuclear waste, are carried on those tracks.

Allred added that there was "no need to spend time judging" the Midwest Residential LLC offering or the Thompson property, since they are both on the glide path to the east/west runway at the Marshall airport. He rejected the Pemberton property because it isn't "central to the county, (which is) not fair to outlying communities when they have to sign up for services or addressing."

Coslet said although the Marshall Industrial Park site might have met some of the NENA criteria, he didn't rate it because, "In my opinion, there's no way (the center) should go there," and any score would have been "real low, anyway."

The two commission members who voted against the choice of the Marshall airport site, Jefferies and Lenz, said they supported the commission's decision. Schroeder was not available for comment.

Contact Kathy Fairchild at marshallhealth@socket.net