Prison Site Selection pt1 |
Previous | 1 of 3 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
C 5700.3 P959s 1989 c. 1 PRISON SITE SELECTIONTASKFORCE FINAL REroRT 2./10 t I' Task Force Members: Dr. Don S. Udell, Chainnan Samuel G. Chapnan Vernon K. Davis, P.E. Robert Holloway Stan Provus PRISC»l SITE SELECTION TASK FORCE FINAL R.EroRT Task Force Members: Dr. Don S. Udell, Chairman Samuel G. Chapnan Vernon K. Davis, P.B. Robert Holloway . Stan Provus PRISON SITE SEIECrION TASK FORCE FINAL REroRl' TABIE OF CX>Nl'ENrS INrROIlJCrION Definition of the Problem Creation of the Task Force '!HE REVIEW POOCESS Public Meetinqs SUbcommittee Reports <X>NCIIJSIONAND ~ONS suproRl'ING MATERIAL Appen:lix A - Figures 1 am 2 Appen:lix B - Senate Bill 2 ApperxliX C - SUbcommittee Reports Appen:lix D - Meetinq Agen:3as am Minutes Appen:lix E - other Community Proposals '!his report represents the final recanunerrlationsof the Prison site Selection Task Force. '!he task force, chaired by Dr. DonS. Udell, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership an:! Policy studies, University of Oklahoma,was established in November, 1988 by the Oklaho-na D:parbnent of Corrections. Members of the task force include: SamuelG. Olapman,Professor of Political Science, University of Oklaho-ma; Vernon K. Davis, P.E., Administrator, construction & Properties Division, state of OklahomaOffice of Public Affairs; Robert Holloway, Assistant Professor of Crilninal Justice, cameronuniversity; and stan Provus, state Born.Advisor, state of OklahomaExecutive & Legislative Born.OVersightCommissions. In developing these recarnmerrlationsthe task force relied on several sources of info:nnation: public testwny, written testwny, staff research, and members'personal experience and expertise. (Com-plete doctnnentationcan be fourrl in the apperxlices. It should be noted that the order in whichthe sites are presented is not meantto suggest their relative importanceor priority for action.) The task force was supportedby staff of the OklahomaJ)epartnEltof Corrections. Definition of the Problem The legislature and the Pardonand Parole Boardshould be conunended for recent and past efforts to ease prison crowding. For example, Conununityservice Sentencing and Pre-Parole Corrlitional SUpervisionare programsimplementedlast year whichdecrease receptions into prison and increase releases fran prison, respectively. However, crowding in prison continues to be a critical concern for the state of Oklahoma. In Augustof 1988 GovernorBellIlDncalled' a special session of the state legislature to deal with the prison problem. At that time Senate Bill 2 directed the OklahomaJ)epartnElt of Corrections to take immediate actions by considering plans for the expansfon of mediumand maximum security bed space at the Oklahomastate Penitentiary at McAlesterand construction of a min.imunVne:limsencurity prison to be located at Hinton. The prison population has nore than doubled over the last ten years, grc1Ningfran 4300 in 1979 to over 10,500 today. Oklahomahas respondedto this problem, in part, by exparxlingcapacity. In addition, Oklahomahas implementedan energencyrelease act (the "cap" law) and has encouragedthe use of alternatives to incarceration. Nevertheless, the prison systemtoday has nearly 1400 iInnatesover capacity. Figure 1 (AppendixA) showsprojected crowdingby security level at the ern. of calerrlar year 1998: 1) urder current policy (i.e., the "cap" law is in effect); and 2) assuming"cap" were not in effect. ,Figure 2 (Appendix A) presents iInnatepopulation projections with and without "cap." Prison population growthhas been a persistent problem. Although various prograns have been implementedto control growth, the task force foresees prison population grcMln:Jfor many years to came unless significant action is taken by the Oklahanalegislature. capacity expansdon is one option that should be seriously considered. Because the greatest bed space shortages are and will Prison site selection TaskForce Final Report February 13, 1989 Page2 continue to be in maximum am IOOdiumsecurity facilities, am because they take at least two to three years to build, highest priority should be given to exparrlirg the higher security levels. Creation of the Task Force Senate Bill 2 directed the Oklahorra ~t of Correctionsto study the expansionof prison facilities at lwt:Al.ester ard Hinton. '!he Oklahona~partment of Corrections, in order to obtain an inunediateand unbiased evaluation of the two sites, naned an "external," task force. '!he Prison site Selection Task Force was established in November1988. '!he Prison site Selection Task Force was given the charge of con:iucting a feasibility study for expansion of medimnam maximum security bed space at the Oklahomastate Penitenticu:y at McAlester am constnlction of a nri.nilnunVmedimsencurity prison to be lcx:::atedat Hinton. '!he scope of the task force marrlate was limited to consideration of: 1) state operated prisons only (in contrast to privately operated facilities); 2) the cost of facilities; am 3) financing, to include present value analysis. '!he task force was directed to look at Hinton am McAlester sites first; however, other interested conum.mitieswere invited to submit relevant infonnation to the task force. '!HERE.'V]Eq. PRCX:::ESS On November28, 1988, the task force had its organizational meet-ing. '!he task force agreed to review infonnation to include: geographic distribution of current facilities am security levels; fiscal am historical infonnation; site starrlards (ACA,etc.); facility organiza-tional stnlcture; prison population projections; am other relevant infonnation provided by the OklahomaDeparbnent of Corrections. In addition, the task force agreed to hold three site review m:etings. site ReviewMeetings '!he first meeting was held on December12, 1988 in Hinton, Oklaho-ma, while the:secon:i m:eting was held on December14, 1988 in McAlester, Oklahoma. EaCh of these m:etings was held following a tour of the proposed prison site am a tour of the town. At each lcx:::ationthe task force memberslistened to statem:mts fram irrli viduals who supported or opposedplacem=ntof a prison facility in their c::cmm.mityA.n invitation was exterxied for anyonewishing to makea written statem:mt to the task force to do so in care of the OklahomaDepartmentof Corrections. A third m:eting was held on January 10, 1Q89 at the Oklahoma Deparbnentof Corrections administration builclinJ in Oklahomacity. '!he purpose of the third m:eting was to provide an opportunity for other interested parties to be heard am present supporting infonnation. Representatives fram Beaver, Cl.1shin:J am Helena were present, am all expressed interest in having a prison facility lcx:::ated in their c::cmm.mities. In addition, persons fram Hinton spoke both for am against their city as the site. Most had not spoken at the December 12th m:eting. Prison site Selection Task Force Final Report February 13, 1989 Page 3 SUbcommittee RepOrts On January 13, 1989 the Prison site Selection Task Force ret to discuss its fi.rrlirxJs am evaluative criteria am the fonrat am struc-ture of the final report. At this reetin:j two subcc:mnittees were created. Each was to prepare a subcc:mnittee report sunurarizing its firxiID;Js am judging the feasibility of establishing a prison at either or both locations. On January 27, 1989 the Prison site Selection Task Force ret to discuss the subcarmni.ttee reports. '!he fo11owin:] matrix presents the fi.rrlin:Js of the subcarmni.tteeswith respect to the evaluative criteria. Copies of the full reports are included in Apperrlix C. IHYSICAALNDFISCAL<DNSIDERATIOSUNI3CSX:MvIT'ITE REroRl' FINDINGS CRITERIA/FAcroRS Accessibility Terrain Water Electricity ani gas Sewagetreatment Time to construct Disadvantages Borrl Issuance Good Good Good Noproblem A I1eINsewage lagoon will be required Up to 8 months can be saved. Noneobserved Feasible Good Good Good Noproblem A new sewage lagoon will be required Noneobserved Feasible SOCIALANDAIMINISTRATI<VDENSIDERATIOstJNI3CSXl.1MITTE REroRl' FINDINGS CRITERIA/FAcroRS Available Labor Force Social Climate Social IIrpact (Assilnilation of staff) support; Services Administrative considerations HINroN Adequate Questionable Slower Adequate Good Adequate Good Faster Adequate Good Prison site Selection Task Force Final Report February 13, 1989 Page 4 Prisons in Oklahooacontinue to beccme rrore CIUtrled, ard prcx:JIOIl1S designed to reverse the trerrl have not been effective. Even the "cap" law has not stopped prison ~ation gmvth. rrbe prison population is currently 1500 irnnates over the 95% capacity level, the threshold for awarctirg energency time credits. Although all security levels are projected to be oveI'CI'ClY.tbieydthe errl of 1998, the ITOSt serious problem is in maximumand mediumsecurity facilities. '!he task force believes at least one mediumsecurity prison should be funded this year so that construction can begin as soon as possible. After hearing testilrony fram representatives fram Hinton and McAlester and evaluating both CXJIl1l'ClI.lIo1ntiesseveral factors, the task force has determined that both sites are adequate for prison construc-tion and operation. '!he only concern the task force has is in regard to the social illlpact a large institution mayhave on Hinton. Deparbnent of Corrections employees could be assimilated faster at McAlester than Hinton because McAlester is a mudl larger CXJIl1l'ClI.lIo1nty.the plus side for Hinton, however, is the town's association with a large construction conglomerate whidl is ready to fund and build a prison for lease-purchase to the state. 'Ibis would allow the state to acquire additional capacity up to eight months faster than if it followed the traditional rrethod for prison construction. '!he task force also looked at financing prison construction through a bond issuance. 'Ibis type of financing should be further studied by the Office of state Finance and the legislature. It would be feasible to finance prison construction through bonds at both sites. In conclusion, the task force recarnrnerrls the following actions for the state of Oklahoma: 1) F'L1rrl at least one rrediumsecurity prison for inutmiate construction, to be located at either Hinton or McAlester. 2) Develop a camprehensive construction plan to address the increasing prison crowding projected through 1998, especially with regard to the higher security levels. 3) Study in depth both bond financing and lease-purchase al ternati ves to traditional rrethods of capital financing and construction. Prison Site Selection Task Force Final Report Signature Page j.~~ Don S. Udell, Chairman 5,-.12 ,-. ~~ •..--"'".-==-'~ Samuel G. Chapman Vernon K. Davis Stan Provus AppeIrlix A Figure 1 OVERCROWDING PROJECTION. END OF 1998 NUMBER OF INMATES OVER CAPACITY WITH AND WITHOUT 'CAP' LAW ACTIVE 7000 TAWODITDTA'HLLCAWWIPIOTHCOAUPT CAP ~ 6000 .>-- •.....u<0 .. L3 5000 Noo .-. 0:: 4000 w>o (J) w!< 3000 ::E: Z•..... u, 0w0::2000 CD ::E: :::::> z 1000 O...L..--..J 325337207318 TOTAL 258239257 MAXIMUM 11052526 2578 MEDIUM 820 807 1627 MINIMUM 422 251 673 COMMUNITY Figure 2 14000- 13500- 13000- 12500- If<D-: 12000- :E z•..... LoL 11500- 0w::: rn :E 11000- =z> 10500- 10000- 9500- OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TOTAL SYSTEM POPULATION PROJECTIONS WITH AND WITHOUT CAP PROJECTED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAP AND NO CAP RX><X>4 ACTUAL TOTAL SYSTEM POPULATION --~ XXX>c ~ ~ ~XXXXXXXXX>c .,. O:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX>c >c XXXXXXXAA.AXXXX>C .A.xXXX>C XXXXXXXXXXXXXX>C X.JC xx-XY)C WITHOUT CAP XXXXXXXXXXXXX>C A.A.XXX>C Xx..X~ 9000.- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/87 6/88 6/89 6/90 6/91 6/92 6/93 6/94 6/95 6/96 6/97 6/98 12/87 12/88 12/89 12/90 12/91 12/92 12/93 12/94 12/95 12/96 12/98 12/98 IR WITH CAP Appenlix B 1 the Oklahoma Statutes: Budgetary Limitation Full-time-equivalent Employees Amount iht 29.0 Payroll, Salaries or Wages, Including Tax-sheltered Deferment Contracts and Longevity Payments Authorized by State Statutes $6961495T98 $116,175.00 Professional and Personal Services Contracts $0.00 Purchase of Equipment $i6J49hee $27,300.00 Expenditure of Federal Funds $0.00 Total Expenditures for Operations 'hUSTUhee $1,045,365.00 SECTION 13. There will be SECTION 14. There is hereby appropriated to the Department of Buman Services from any monies not otherwise appropriated froa the Speci.l Cash Fund of the State Treasury the sum of Three Bundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($370.000.00) or so much thereof as aay be necessary for youth services programs and shelter •• SECTION 15. There is hereby appropriated to the Department of Buman Services from any monies not otherwise appropriated from the Special cash Fund of the State Treasury the sum of Three Bundred One Thousand Thirty-four Dollars ($301,034.00) or so much thereof as may be necessary for capital construction at the juvenile detention centers in Muskogee and Enid. SECTION 16. AMENDATORY Section 3 of Enrolled Bouse Bill No. 1567 of the 2nd Session of the 41st Oklahoma Legislature, is amended to read as follows: Section 3. It is the intent ~f the Legislature that the funds appropriated to the Department of Buman Services in Sections 1 and 2 of Enrolh·d House Bill No. 1567 of the 2nd Session of the 41st Oklahoma Legislature and Section 14 of this act shall be expended in the following amounts and categories: 1. Services to Children and Youth $ 48,721,197.00 th3ih38io99 8,681,382.00 2. Oklahoma youth Services Agencies 3. Services to the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled 4. Rehabilitative and Visual Services 22,300,652.00 8,721,908.00 5. School for the Blind 3,459,314.00 6. Services for the Deaf and ENGR. S. B. NO. 2 (3R~ EXTRAORDINARY SESSION) Page 9 Apperrlix c FHYSlCAL AND FISCAL CDNSIDERATIONS SlJBCXlv1MITI'E REroRr January 27, 1989 FHYSlCAL CRITERIA Accessibility Terrain Water Electricity am gas SewageTreatment Time to construct; Disadvantages Bondissuance FHYSlCAL CDNSIDERATIONS EVAIDATION MATRIX HINION Good. Close to I-40 on US-281. The location can provide enoughdistance between the highwayard the site for a security buffer. Good. Rolling terrain with the main site located on the top of a large flat area. A square mile of lam has been identified as being included, all of whidl can be well utilized by a prison. Good. Nine water wells are on the site whidl may be developed for use as a water supply. All reports irrlicate that there is a plentiful supply. Noproblem. A newsewage lagoon will be required. 16 to 18 months, A constnlction conglomerate is ready to finance am build a prison for lease to the state. Upto 8 months can be saved. NoneobseIved. Feasible. Good. Near US-270 on existin;J prison grourxls. Good. Gently sloping terrain just south of the old women'sunit on the grourxls of OSP. Good. water is supplied from the City of McAlester whidl has assured us that their newplant can easily absorb the expansion. Noproblem. A new sewage lagoon will be required. 24 to 36 months. Noneobsel:ved. Feasible. In surranary, with regard to such factors as accessibility, the terrain, am utility availabilitity, both sites would meet the requirements the Department of corrections is likely to have for the types of prisons considered for these two sites. FISCAL (X)NSIDERATIONS See attached treJt¥:) fran stan Provus the state borrl advisor, regard-in1 bond financin1 of prisons. State of Oklaho ma EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BOND OVERSIGHT COMMISSIONS 104 State Capitol Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 405/521-2121 Stan Provus State Bond Advisor MEMORANDUM TO: Cliff Sandel, Deputy Director Administrative Services Department of Corrections Stan Provus -Ie f/ State Bond Advisor ~ ~~3k1U'~~~~@ FROM: OlVIS:ON Of ADMINISTRATION DATE: January 30, 1989 SUBJECT: Bond Financing of Prisons Bond financing is the preferable funding alternative for new prisons. Bond financing brings about intergenerational equity in paying for oapital assets with long useful lives like prisons. Moreover, it would actually be less expensive for the State to bond for prisons than pay cash, assuming the cash were available. Under current market conditions, these savings would total about $3.1 million dollars on a $30 million dollar prison. Various aspects of a bonded approach to financing prison(s) are considered below. I. Type of Bond Tax-exempt revenue bonds or Certificates of Participation Bonds would be secured by lease payments from the Department of Corrections. Once all lease payments are made, the facility would revert to State ownership (sometimes ownership can be transferred at origination). The Department of Corrections would be required to request annual appropriations to make lease payments. Because annual lease payments represent annual operating expenses contingent on appropriations, the financing would not represent "debt" for constitutional purposes nor be subject to voter approval. There is about $33 million of public sale, lease rental bond debt outstanding in Oklahoma for which the State is responsible. It is being used to finance both real property and equipment for a number of State agencies ranging from the Department of Human Services to the State Finance office. All such issues have been rated "A" by Moody's, without credit enhancement. A prison issue could expect a similar rating without credit enhancement. II. Estimate of Annual Debt Service Cost Assumptions: - $30 million principal amount - 20 year term - "A" rated bond issue - 7.6% Net Interest Cost under current conditions A. Monthly payment: $243,515 B. Annual payment: $2,922,187 This debt service cost estimate is reasonable under current market conditions. The McAlester Industrial Development Authority term sheet contemplates an "insured" offering sold through "competitive bid". The question of who should issue the bonds is considered below. There are several issues that need to be considered to establish whether an "insured" offering is cost-effective and, secondly, whether a competitive versus negotiated offering makes sense. These issues are inter-dependent. Bond insurance is a form of "credit enhancement" or substitution and simply involves an issuer's purchase of outside support for a bond issue which substitutes for an issuer's own credit on a particular bond issue. The credit substitute provides protection to bondholders, even in the event of issuer default. The issue is, therefore, assigned a rating reflecting the insurer's (bank letter of credit, bond insurer, etc.) own debt rating. A municipal bond insurance policy is a non-cancellable guarantee to make timely debt service payments, if the issuer does not. There are a number of companies providing insurance on municipal bonds (AMBAC, BIC, MBIA, FGIC). Insured bonds today account for about 30% of new issue volume. On an Oklahoma prison issue, bond insurance could be expected to improve the rating from "A" to "AM" and thereby permit accessing the market at lower interest rates. An issue rated "AM" rated issue would likely sell at an NIC rate of 7.3% versus the 7.6% rate noted above for an "A" rated issue~ Under current market conditions, if the annual cost of the insurance premium was less than 30 basis points (100 basis points=l%), an "insured" approach would be cost-effective. If higher than 30 basis points, it would not be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of bond insurance can only be established once Page 2 quotes are received from insurers and measured against interest rate savings under prevailing market conditions (spreads between A and AAA-rated issues vary) • If cost-effective, a bond insured issue would likely achieve the most aggressive pricing though a "competitive" sale. Generally speaking, an issuer achieves the best rates through competitive sale on "plain vanilla", general obligation backed bond issues. Most revenue bonds are sold through "negotiated" sales, since there is usually more of a "story bond' element to them and a negotiated sale permits pre-marketing of an issue to minimize this handicap. Bond insurance acts to eliminate the "story" element because the bond buyer really looks to the AAA-rated credit of the insurer. Thus, the question of insured versus uninsured and competitive versus negotiated sale will rest with the determination of the cost-effectiveness of bond insurance near the time of sale. III. Who should issue the Bonds? Industrial Development Authorities at both sites have offered to act as the bond issuer. It should be understood that both would act as conduits for the financing and assume no risk on the bond issue(s). The "credit" is the State, regardless of who issues the bonds. Serious consideration should be given to issuing any such bonds through the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority or Capital Improvement Authority, since their bonds would carry a "double exemption" in contrast to the "single" exemption available through the local issuing authorities. "Double" exemption means the bonds are exempt from both State and federal taxation; single means federal only. A double-exempt bond sold primarily to Oklahoma buyers would likely be priced about 8-10 basis points lower. This would lower annual debt service by $22,000 per year or save $441,000 over the life of the issue (present value savings of $274,000 and $188,000 at 5% and 10% discount rates respectively). IV. Cash Versus Bonding Cost Effectiveness Perhaps the economist's most often quoted dictum is: "There is no such thing as a free lunch." The cost of a resource, State appropriations in this instance to pay cash for a prison, is therefore, the value of that resource in its best alternative use, or more broadly, the cost of any decision is the value of the best alternative opportunity thereby forsaken. This definition of cost, known as the opportunity cost doctrine, is probably the economist's major contribution to the practice of decision-making. Keeping this principal in mind, the following analysis demonstrates why it would be cheaper to bond for a prison than pay cash. The difference or spread between taxable and Page 3 tax-exempt interest rates drives this analysis. Under current market conditions, a prison bond could access the tax-exempt market at about 7.6% (NIC, single-exempt). On the other hand, the State can invest funds in a highly rated guaranteed investment contract (GIC) and access a 9.1% taxable rate. This means the State could invest an amount of money in an escrow at 9.1% and use the escrow to pay principal and interest on a 7.6% tax-exempt bond. Since the GIC escrow pays interest at a higher rate than the bond, only $26,873,000 would need to be invested to meet the monthly debt service payments of $243,515 on the $30 million bond. This would save the State $3,126,000 in current dollars. Thus, a bonding approach is more cost-effective than paying cash, assuming the cash is available. The "best use" of State funds is this investment approach to support a bond issue or use of the "cash" for alternative uses such as building up the rainy day fund. There are some restrictions in the Tax Code that would limit too direct a relationship between an escrow fund capitalized with State cash and a bond issue. SOP:pks cc: Dr. Don Udell College of Education Page 4 SOCIAL AND AIMNISTRATIVE OONSIDERATIONS SUBCX:MvU'lTEE REroRr January 27, 1989 'lhis subconunitteelookedbeyorrljust the economiciIrpact of estab-lishirxJ a prison in a cammmity. We looked at the social structure: what structures mist be there to ensure success, am what changes are likely to ocx::uras a result of the presence of a large institution. '!he items we considered included: available labor force, social cl.inate, social i.Irpact, support services, ani administrative considerations. Available labor Force '!he available labor force includes both skilled am unskilled labor. In Iookinq at the available labor force in the cammmities, we fim that McAlesteris probably slightly better off than Hinton regani-irq size of the workforce am perhaps even correctional-related skills represented. However,there are substantial mnnbers of ready and willirq workers in both areas. Social Clinate Social clinate includes political am citizen attitudes am will. '!here wasaburrlanttestiloony at both public hearings that both McAlester am Hinton political leaders support;the establishment of a prison in their area. In regard to citizen will, samecitizens in Hinton have certainly voiced their opp::sition, while no opposition to the proposed expansionwasexpressed fromanyonein McAlester. Withinthe context of citizen am political will, the subcanunitteemist, identify McAlesteras apparently nore responsive am more receptive to the proposition than Hinton. Social Impact Social inpact refers to the ability of the canununityto assimilate corrections personnel, their families, am irnnate families, into the canununity. OUr feelirq is that the canununityof McAlester,beirq prison sensitive am experiencedalready, wouldmorelikely assimilate the new prison families into the canununitywith greater ease than the cxnnmunity of Hinton. Werealize that Hinton will take necessary steps to make staff am visitors as welcomeas possible; however,wealso realize that in a cxnnmunity of the size of Hintonthere maybe sameproblems,partic-ularly aIOO~those people in the canununitythat have consistently opposedthe prison. Weare troubled by this, but wedo not consider it a major barrier. '!he subcanunitteefelt that the ability of the respective local school systemsto assimilate the y~ of the correctional families wasprobably equal. SUpportServices Support services include supp::>rttype businesses am service enterprises. Eachcanununitycurrently has these services in place am looks fo:t:WcUto'd expansion. Again, McAlester is slightly ahead of Hinton: however,wedo not see this as a major selection factor. Administrative Considerations '!he subcaImnitteelooked at administrative considerations within the context of the Depart:nEltof Corrections' control. '!he subcommitteedid not see any difference in the two locales, with one exception. Regard-irg supply am storage capabilities, M::Alester has a slight edge over Hinton. '!his difference is not substantial enoughto affect the selec-tion decision. SUmrrary In SUlTIllm'Y, in M:Alester this subcommittee sees a mature, prison seasoned cannnunitythat is seeking expansion. In Hinton, we see a group of people whospoke persuasively ani enthusiastically for lcx:::ationof a prison in their canm.mity. Wehave no reason to believe that is not the case with manymanypeople in Hinton, but as wein:licated before, weare just a bit uncertain as to the scale of support.
Object Description
Description
Title | Prison Site Selection pt1 |
OkDocs Class# | C5700.3 P959s 1989 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Deposited by agency in print; scanned by Oklahoma Department of Libraries 8/2011 |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text |
C 5700.3 P959s 1989 c. 1
PRISON SITE SELECTIONTASKFORCE
FINAL REroRT
2./10 t I'
Task Force Members:
Dr. Don S. Udell, Chainnan
Samuel G. Chapnan
Vernon K. Davis, P.E.
Robert Holloway
Stan Provus
PRISC»l SITE SELECTION TASK FORCE
FINAL R.EroRT
Task Force Members:
Dr. Don S. Udell, Chairman
Samuel G. Chapnan
Vernon K. Davis, P.B.
Robert Holloway .
Stan Provus
PRISON SITE SEIECrION TASK FORCE
FINAL REroRl'
TABIE OF CX>Nl'ENrS
INrROIlJCrION
Definition of the Problem
Creation of the Task Force
'!HE REVIEW POOCESS
Public Meetinqs
SUbcommittee Reports
|
Date created | 2011-08-25 |
Date modified | 2011-08-25 |