Oshkosh committee recommends council adopt electric-vehicle readiness plan; pilot sites proposed

The Oshkosh City Transportation Committee on Tuesday reviewed an electric-vehicle (EV) readiness plan developed with SRF Consultants and informally recommended that the Common Council adopt the plan, without taking a formal vote at the workshop.

The plan, presented by Bill Tro, a transportation planner with SRF Consultants, outlines current public‑charging inventory, community engagement results, projected EV adoption through 2050 and recommendations for cautious, pilot‑scale public charging on municipally owned property. Committee members discussed two proposed pilot locations (near the Oshkosh Convention Center and at Lakeshore Park), estimated upfront costs and options for third‑party operation and maintenance of chargers.

The committee heard that the plan grew from about two years of work with the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and SRF, including a community survey, three public meetings and stakeholder sessions. Bill Tro said the region currently has a small number of plug‑in vehicles and public ports but that federal funding programs such as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program and competitive community charging grants create funding opportunities. “We started almost 2 years ago. We worked with our Metropolitan Planning Organization…to put out an RFP for a consultant to help us on this journey,” Tro said.

SRF presented baseline figures and forecasts used to size infrastructure. The consultant reported roughly 190,000 registered vehicles in the county (end of 2023) and “just fewer than 400” plug‑in electric vehicles in the region; elsewhere in the presentation staff said the current count is “just short of 500 EVs.” Forecast scenarios produced a wide range for 2050 EV ownership, with a low‑end projection of about 42,000 EVs and higher adoption scenarios substantially above that. SRF estimated the portion of out‑of‑home, public charging that the city would need to plan for at present ranges from roughly 40 to about 125 ports, depending on adoption assumptions.

On charger type and placement, the plan focuses on level‑2 charging for city‑owned public lots and municipal sites — intended for users who park for hours (commuters, convention or event attendees, downtown workers and visitors). Level‑3 (DC fast) chargers, which provide faster charge times and are costlier to install and operate, were identified as appropriate for highway and long‑distance corridors and are being funded through NEVI; the consultant noted two NEVI‑funded DC fast‑charger projects in the broader region, each required by the program to include four DC fast chargers.

Committee members discussed operating models: municipality‑owned and -operated; turnkey vendor ownership and operation; and municipality‑owned with vendor operations/maintenance. Presenters and staff recommended a vendor‑operated model for pilots because vendors have specialized maintenance expertise and uptime guarantees. Jim Collins (city staff) summarized the committee’s charge: to decide whether to recommend adoption of the plan to council and whether to pursue a small pilot, then to return to the Common Council for any budgetary decisions.

Cost and pilot details provided in the workshop: SRF estimated a two‑port level‑2 device at about $20,000; the recommended pilot would place two devices (four ports) at each of two sites for an estimated equipment cost of about $80,000 plus installation and annual maintenance (presented as roughly $500 per device per year). The consultant and staff emphasized that device and installation costs vary and that level‑3 installations can carry much higher price tags.

Committee members voiced differing emphases. Committee member Martin supported piloting public chargers to keep Oshkosh competitive for conventions and visitors: “a pilot seems like a great idea,” Martin said. Committee member Eslinger expressed caution and questioned why private industry has not more fully deployed chargers on its own, asking, “if this was such a great idea…why wouldn't the private industry be coming to the government and saying, hey, we want to do this?” Several members said they were comfortable recommending the city adopt an EV readiness plan while deferring or not yet committing to funding a pilot; one member indicated they would recuse from a formal vote if the matter became contentious and required public hearings.

Next steps identified at the workshop: staff said they will present the plan to the Common Council for adoption (the committee’s informal recommendation will be noted), and any pilot would require capital funding that could be included in next year’s capital improvement program and subject to Council approval. Staff also said the presentation materials and the SRF slide deck would be shared with committee members.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the workshop. The Transportation Committee will return to its regular meeting schedule in November, when any formal recommendation to forward the plan to the Common Council could be placed on the committee agenda for action.