1 / 7

Public Facility Siting Exercise

Public Facility Siting Exercise. Facility Assignments Group 1: Group 3: Group 2: Group 4: Each group should come together and take 10-15 minutes to answer the following questions:

ozzy
Download Presentation

Public Facility Siting Exercise

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Facility Siting Exercise • Facility Assignments • Group 1: Group 3: • Group 2: Group 4: • Each group should come together and take 10-15 minutes to answer the following questions: • 1) What are the key factors in locating your facility type? Be sure to think about: --Facility issues (size, infra needs, etc.) --Land use issues (constraints or needs) --Environmental issues (constraints or needs) --Transportation issues (constraints or needs)2) What are the four most important criteria in siting a facility of the type your group is reviewing? New High School New Waste Transfer Station New Fire Station New Regional Park

  2. The Tension in Siting Public Facilities Socio- PoliticalApproach TechnicalExpertise Approach Spectrum of Facility Siting Decision Making • Generally, there are two approaches for siting public facilities, each at the end of a spectrum of decision making: --At one end is an approach that relies solely on experts --At the other end lies an approach that relies solely on politics and public participation • What are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches?

  3. Locating Public Facilities • There typically exists strong local opposition to many major infrastructure facilities (landfills, sewer treatment stations, drainage systems, even fire stations and schools) • NIMBYism: “Not in my Backyard” syndrome (BANANA, NOPE) • Facility Locations should be decided upon several factors: • Site suitability (what sites fit the criteria for a preferred location) • Economic efficiency (what makes the most economic sense) • Political efficiency (what is politically feasible) • Equity (can facilities be sited equitably across the community) • Typical siting procedures include: -- Auctions --Urban Politics -- Public Referenda --Institutional Will -- Planning/“Rational Method” • Inventory and Assessment • Identify Gaps in Service • Land Use Analyses • Travel Time Analyses

  4. A Typical Facility Siting Process • Three steps are typically undertaken when siting major public facilities: Stage 1 Minimum Technical Standards Screen all possible sites and identify those that meet the minimum standards for a facility. Stage 2 Social/Political Selection Criteria Screen the sites identified in Stage 1 for social and political acceptance. Stage 3 Compensation/Community Acceptance (Optional) The implementation of a compensation package to generate local community acceptance.

  5. Stage 1 Minimum Technical Standards • Summary: The identification of sites that meet the minimumrequirements for the facility. Factors typically include: --acreage --land use/zoning--environmental restrictions --accessibility • Result: This process results in a Long List of sites. • Method: This process should utilize expert evaluations and must emphasize previously established standards for a site. • Errata: This process should exclude any political/social subjectivity. Cost factors should not be considered in Stage 1. • Role of Planners: At this stage the planner is a “technician”; their role is to undertake an analysis (typically using GIS) to identify all potentially suitable sites.

  6. Stage 2 Social/Political Suitability Criteria • Summary: This stage compares the relative “social/political suitability” of the Long List of sites. Factors may include: --site costs --construction costs --political factors --regional impacts • Result: This process results in a ranked Short List of sites. • Method: A combination of expert analysis, public comment, and political input is utilized to complete this list. • Errata: This method requires: --an analysis of public preferences in the siting process --an analysis of “trade-offs” implicit in choosing among technically suitable sites • Role of Planners: In this stage, planners play a role in acquiring and analyzing community input, in eliminating unsuitable sites, and in ranking the remaining short list of sites.

  7. Stage 3 Community Compensation/Acceptance • Summary: This stage evaluates the Short List and generates a final siting decision for the proposed facility. • Result: The selection of the Final Site and the determination of an acceptable Compensation Package for the impacted community. Compensation may include: --financial incentives --mitigation programs --transportation improvements --site design features • Method: A number of methods are possible; expert analysis, pubic referenda, an auction, or political decision-making. • Errata: The final compensation package is often negotiated after the decision has been made and not as part of the actual decision making process. • Role of Planners: In this final stage the planner may be an advocate for both the proposed site for the facility and for the community that will be receiving the new facility.

More Related