Aspen Council Approves $217K for Seven New EV Charging Stations

Is charging an electric vehicle in Aspen really a problem that needs solving, or is it just another line item for the city to subsidize?

That’s the question Council Member Bill Guth asked, and it’s the one that stopped the momentum of a proposal that otherwise sailed through on a technicality.

On Tuesday, the Aspen City Council voted to install seven new electric vehicle charging stations across three city-owned facilities. The plan is straightforward: four stations at the Aspen Golf Club/Truscott, two at the Aspen Recreation Center, and one at the Red Brick Center for the Arts. The total cost? Roughly $217,300.

The city argues this is about infrastructure. The proposal submitted to council notes that these locations were chosen for their high traffic and their ability to provide options for residents, visitors, and city employees. It’s part of the city’s existing Electric Vehicle Public Charging Infrastructure Master Plan. The goal is to expand the network from 24 plugs to 38, reinforcing a commitment to environmental stewardship.

But Guth didn’t buy the "infrastructure" label.

“I don’t hear people asking for this,” Guth said during the regular meeting. “It feels a lot like a subsidy for me and not really a problem that needs solving.”

He’d rather spend the money elsewhere.

It’s a fair critique. When you look at the $217,297.08 price tag, it’s easy to see why a taxpayer might bristle. That’s not pocket change. The funding comes from the General Fund ($147,000) and the Asset Management Plan Fund ($92,000), covering the contract with National Car Charging LLC plus a 15% contingency. The work will be done by the end of fall.

The city’s defense rests on the idea that visibility drives adoption. By installing chargers at the Golf Club and Rec Center, they’re setting a "visible standard for sustainability." National Car Charging LLC was selected because they offered the lowest bid among finalists and have experience with EV installations in mountain communities, including work with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Eagle and Boulder.

Temporary impacts will be minimal. Mostly, it’s just short-term parking disruptions while crews dig and wire.

Yet, the disconnect between the city’s strategic planning and the public’s daily experience remains. The document claims this aligns with council priorities on emissions reduction and sustainable transportation. It’s true. But when the primary justification is "increased availability for City staff to charge City vehicles," the subsidy argument gains traction. Are residents buying enough EVs to justify nearly a quarter of a million dollars in public spending? Or is this about ensuring the city’s own fleet stays green?

Guth’s skepticism highlights a common tension in municipal budgeting. We build things because the master plan says we should, not necessarily because the person on the street is complaining about range anxiety.

The installation will happen. The plugs will be there. But the debate over whether this is essential infrastructure or a luxury subsidy is just getting started.

As the city moves toward the end-of-fall deadline, the hope is that the 38 plugs will prove their worth. Until then, the question remains: who is this actually for?

“The proposed locations at these facilities were selected due to their ability to provide additional charging options for residents and visitors,” the staff report reads.

It’s a promise. Whether it becomes a necessity or a nice-to-have depends on how quickly the valley fills up with electric cars.