On Oct. 20, 2025, OnPoint EV Solutions presented a proposal to the Caldwell City Council to install DC fast chargers (level 3) at multiple city sites under a site‑license agreement that would pay the city a fixed fee and share revenue.

Chris Graham, representing OnPoint EV Solutions, said the company would provide “DC level 3 fast charging as a service” and proposed a site license that would pay the city $215 per parking space per month after a nine‑month ramp up, plus a 10% revenue share on net operating income over a 10‑year agreement once the stations reach an 8% utilization rate. Graham said potential revenue “could be 30 to $50,000 per year” per location per parking space depending on chargers deployed. He described the model as “no capital outlay” for the city and said the company would pursue grants or incentives to offset capital costs.

The presentation listed preliminary recommended sites including the Caldwell Executive Airport, the Caldwell Fairgrounds and Rodeo Grounds, and an area “near Idaho State” (site names were presented by OnPoint as preliminary suggestions). Graham described equipment and operations: scalable solar canopies, dual‑connector dispensers up to 400 kilowatts, a mobile app and managed communications, and a service agreement with a third‑party vendor (UpTime) that OnPoint said provides a 97% uptime service level. He said site power would be dropped through a separate utility agreement so the chargers would not use city electrical infrastructure.

Council members pressed for local context and operational details. Councilor Doherty said she preferred adding new parking rather than converting existing spaces, citing concern that six parking spaces could be taken at some event sites. Councilor Register noted statewide EV counts from a public internet search and said the proposed sites would likely serve visitors passing through rather than local owners; he also said sites near the freeway might make more sense than downtown locations. Councilor Elkins asked whether the city would be competing with private charging stations; OnPoint replied that current demand means new public chargers are additive rather than competitive and that drivers “are really just trying to find the charging stations at all.”

Councilors asked technical and financial follow‑ups: how long before profitability would be clear, what happens if a site underperforms, solar performance in winter, maintenance response times and whether the city’s parking or finance operations would be involved in billing. OnPoint said standard agreements are 10 years and that the company would continue paying the city the fixed parking‑space fee regardless of charger utilization; utility billing would be handled through a separate agreement with the local utility, not through city finance; solar primarily supports low‑voltage needs (cameras, lighting) and sites can be designed with battery storage if required. OnPoint said its typical service response standard of care is to have technicians on site as needed and that the network operator’s monitoring can predict failures.

The presentation included financial pro formas showing revenue growth as utilization increases and noted an “average capital investment per site is about 1.3” (the speaker did not specify units). Council members asked the city staff to gather more local data — including the number of EVs registered locally and the precise capabilities and public access of private chargers such as those at the Flying J — before deciding whether to proceed to a formal license agreement.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the workshop; the item remained at the presentation/discussion stage and council members asked staff to return with additional information.