A private vendor told the Milford School Committee on May 1 that current state and utility incentives could cover the cost to install Level‑2 electric vehicle charging stations at district schools and suggested the district could either own the equipment or accept a vendor‑owned installation with a revenue‑share agreement.

The presenter described the state Mass EVIP incentive and utility programs from National Grid and Eversource that support Level‑2 charging station installations and said, under current program rules, the incentive would cover most installation costs. “My company in conjunction with what the state and the utilities are offering, will be covering all the costs based upon the current incentive,” the presenter said, adding his company would also operate and maintain the equipment if the district preferred that approach.

Key technical and financial points presented to the committee:

• Level‑2 chargers are the recommended option for school parking and athletic fields because they provide meaningful charging during multi‑hour stays; the vendor said dual‑port installations (two charging stations with four ports) are a common configuration.

• The vendor estimated the full installed cost for a two‑charger/four‑port grouping at roughly $50,000, but said the current incentives and utility reimbursements would reduce or eliminate out‑of‑pocket costs for the district.

• Two ownership models were presented: district ownership (recommended by the vendor) or vendor ownership with a profit‑sharing arrangement; the vendor proposed a 50% revenue share if the vendor retained ownership and operation. The vendor said charging fees can be set by the district and an “idle fee” can be applied to prevent cars from occupying a stall after charging.

• The vendor noted maintenance warranties (five years) and a small transaction/management fee taken by charging networks (he cited roughly 10% of the user fee to cover card processing, Wi‑Fi and 24‑hour customer support).

Committee members raised siting and process questions: ADA‑accessible placement requirements could require stations near primary building entrances; site‑plan amendments and planning‑board review may be necessary; and district parking capacity must be considered because adding chargers can remove general‑use spaces. Members also asked whether the town government is pursuing a parallel program; the presenter said he had presented to several town departments and most were supportive.

After discussion the committee voted to refer the proposal to the facilities subcommittee for further study, including site visits, a determination of where conduit and power taps would be most feasible, and an initial assessment of parking and ADA impacts. The referral passed 5–2. The facilities subcommittee will report back with a recommendation and siting options before any final approval or contract is executed.