Olive Branch delays decision on Cascades Town Center power routing after weeks of debate

The Olive Branch Board of Aldermen on April 1 tabled action on whether to allow overhead transmission lines at the 75-acre Cascades Town Center planned unit development, directing city staff and North Central Electric to return in two weeks with two revised plans.

The item arose during the planning commission portion of the meeting, where staff described four options for delivering power to the project: an overhead loop, a partially buried line, full undergrounding across the development, or postponing a decision. The board spent more than two hours questioning utility representatives, the developer and city staff about cost, timeline, aesthetics and reliability.

Why it matters: Cascades Town Center is a major mixed-use project at the Highway 305/Highway 178 interchange that the board rezoned to a PUD in 2019 and amended in 2022. The route chosen for power lines affects construction timing, developer costs and visible streetscape treatments along the city gateway.

Developer Greg Russell of Civil Source told the board he had pushed for underground service but that North Central Electric informed the team the load for the development requires larger equipment. "I'm not an electrical engineer," Russell said, "…these poles I mean, this utility line have such a heavy load on them that we want them above ground." He and other project representatives asked the board to consider an overhead loop that would place taller steel poles behind building lines and keep most service lines buried.

David Von Bachman, representing North Central Electric, explained practical constraints. Company engineers said the conductor and switchgear needed for a full underground loop are not in local stock and that ordering the larger underground equipment would add roughly six months to the schedule and about $500,000 in material costs, per the estimates discussed at the meeting. Von Bachman said the overhead loop option was preferred because it allows the utility to restore service faster after outages and provides loop redundancy.

Several aldermen raised concerns about visibility and the placement of poles near the project's main roundabout. "I don't like option 2 as it is now for two reasons. Number 1, it looks like it's just thrown together. I want consistency," Alderman (Earhart) told the developer and utility engineers. Alderman Dickerson objected to the prospect of guy wires and multiple poles at the development entrance, saying the arrangement would be a safety and aesthetic problem.

City staff and the developer discussed several tradeoffs: the overhead loop would be less costly and faster to build and would keep most service laterals underground; partial burial would require an MDOT permit for a pole in the Highway 305 right-of-way and could introduce guy-wire conflicts with business entrances; full undergrounding would be aesthetically preferable but would require special large-diameter conductors, switchgear and a six‑month procurement delay at significant additional cost.

After debate, Alderman Earhart moved to table the application for two weeks and asked staff and North Central to return with two alternatives: (1) the overhead loop design North Central presented and (2) a design that would bring the main feed along Fulmer Drive and run underground across the face of the project to the far northern corner. The motion was seconded and the board voted to table the item until the board's April 15 meeting; the transcript records a voice vote and does not list individual roll-call votes.

The board also directed city staff to coordinate follow-up meetings between North Central, the developer and municipal engineering staff. The developer said the company hopes to avoid a six‑month delay but that some procurement constraints may be unavoidable.

The item remains under consideration; the board will revisit it at its April 15 meeting with revised plans from North Central and city engineering.