Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Carshare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City study finds EV car‑share pilot is feasible; council asks staff to pursue grants and explore vouchers
Summary
A city‑commissioned feasibility study recommends a two‑vehicle EV car‑share pilot at a housing authority site, backed by a Colorado Energy Office grant that could cover most costs; council asked staff to finish the study, pursue implementation funding and also explore transportation‑voucher alternatives.
City staff and consultants presented an electric‑vehicle car‑share feasibility and readiness study funded by the Colorado Energy Office, noting the grant paid for the phase‑one needs assessment and that implementation grants may fund up to 95% of pilot costs. The consultant team said community outreach found interest in a car‑share option: a community survey showed 55% of respondents would be likely to use a car‑share, and focus groups with residents and developers suggested the model could support affordable housing developments by reducing parking needs.
Walter Scheib of the consultant team described a proposed minimal pilot serving 2814 Patterson — a Grand Junction Housing Authority site that has existing Level‑2 charging infrastructure — and said a two‑vehicle pilot would be the most reliable small‑scale approach. He explained program costs (start‑up and recurring operational fees) and said an implementation grant could reduce local costs to roughly $9,000 in local matching funds for a $300,000 implementation award.
Council members raised concerns about equity and scope. One councilor (Speaker 9) argued that using grant funds to subsidize vehicles at a single apartment complex could be inequitable and proposed a transportation voucher pilot as a lower‑cost, city‑wide alternative; staff responded that voucher programs have different funding prospects and that ride‑hail services have proven unreliable in local testing. Staff recommended pursuing the CEO implementation grant and completing a pilot that could include one housing‑authority‑based site and one community site to compare models. Council asked staff to complete the final report, pursue implementation funding, and also investigate transportation vouchers and other lower‑cost or additive solutions.
No formal vote was taken; council recorded informal direction to continue exploration and to bring back findings and options for implementation funding and procurement.
