Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Charging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prospect council declines first reading of EV‑charging requirement after debate over costs and data
Summary
Council considered Ordinance 657 to require EV charging in new or enlarged commercial parking but voted down first reading after members raised cost, local EV adoption and data concerns; Holmes moved and Dr. Furman seconded the motion.
The Prospect City Council on Nov. 17 considered a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 657, amending Chapter 150) that would require electric‑vehicle charging stations in new or enlarged commercial parking. Council member David Holmes moved the motion for a first reading; Dr. Fuhrman seconded.
Holmes said the idea grew from an intern study and from the observation that there is currently only one public charger in Prospect, at Highland Cleaners. He proposed a model similar to other cities that require a percentage of new parking spaces to include EV chargers or be pre‑wired for chargers. In his draft, Holmes used a 10% standard and wiring for an additional 10% to allow future conversion.
During debate council members questioned the cost and the local need. Don Gibson and others said requiring chargers (or fast chargers) could impose a significant cost on small and medium developers; Sandra Leonard and John Clark asked for better local data on EV adoption and cost estimates. Holmes said commercial operators would be permitted to charge commercially reasonable rates for use of chargers.
On roll call the motion for first reading failed: Yes — David Holmes and Dr. Fuhrman; No — Sandra Leonard, John Clark, Mayor Evans and Don Gibson. Council members said discussion would continue and Holmes and staff were encouraged to refine the proposal and present more analytics before resubmission.
No ordinance text was adopted at this meeting.
