Temple ISD approves resolution backing Big Hill 765-kV project but opposes several route alternatives

The Temple Independent School District Board of Trustees on July 14 approved a resolution expressing support for the Bell County East Big Hill 765‑kilovolt transmission project while opposing certain route alternatives that district staff say would negatively affect planned neighborhoods, school sites and parks. The board took the action during its regular meeting after district representatives described alternative corridors under consideration.

The resolution matters because several of the proposed route alternatives — identified in the project maps as alternatives A‑4 through A‑6 — run through the southern portion of the city and, according to the district presentation, could create “adverse impact to some planned neighborhoods around our school, not just in our district, but just ISD as well.” The board’s action asks that project planners consider different alignments proposed by the city that the district says would avoid schools and residential developments.

Superintendent Doctor Ott introduced the item and told trustees the city of Temple had proposed an alternative route intended to achieve the project’s objectives without placing transmission lines adjacent to planned school sites and housing. Doctor Ott said the district and city discussed joining in the resolution and that signatories would be added later; the board approved the concept tonight and agreed to finalize signatures afterward.

Trustee Gaines moved approval; Trustee Gallant seconded. The motion carried with Trustee Suarez recorded as abstaining. The resolution as presented does not include signatures on the printed copy, and the board said it would add signatories after approval.

The discussion during the meeting focused on alignment choices and potential localized impacts; no contract, easement or construction authorization was approved by the school board. The district’s remarks emphasized that the board is not opposed to bringing needed electric transmission capacity to the area, but is asking planners to avoid routes that place lines near schools, parks and planned single‑family housing.

Board members did not reference state statutes or other legal authorities during the discussion, and the board did not adopt any binding land‑use condition affecting the project beyond the resolution of position and concern.

What happens next: the district will finalize signatories and coordinate with the city on transmitting the board’s position to the project developer and relevant municipal or county review processes. No additional board action on this item was announced at the meeting.