Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Goshen Plant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manteno residents press board over Goshen plant safety, transparency
Summary
Dozens of residents used public comment at the March 17 Manteno Village Board meeting to raise safety, transparency and financial concerns about the Goshen High‑tech facility; Trustee Joel Geske gave staffing and emergency‑response updates and disputed several claims made by opponents.
Dozens of residents pressed the Manteno Village Board on March 17 over the proposed Goshen High‑tech facility, raising concerns about public‑safety risks, tax abatements and the board’s transparency while trustees and staff described training, hiring and emergency‑response planning.
The comments opened with a lengthy reading of language the speaker said came from Goshen’s corporate documents, including the line, “The company shall set up a party organization to carry out party activities,” which the commenter, Ryan McAfee, used to argue the firm had ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Multiple other residents raised related concerns about hazardous chemicals, Material Safety Data Sheets and the lack of pre‑construction environmental studies.
Why it matters: The Goshen project has become the dominant topic in town discussions and the March 17 public‑comment period. Residents asked the board to produce technical reports, named local financial impacts (including a cited $2,000,000 tax‑abatement figure), and demanded clearer, earlier disclosure of permitting and inspection steps. The board moved forward on routine business but also used the meeting to summarize Goshen’s near‑term staffing and the village’s coordination with emergency responders.
Speakers during public comment recounted direct impacts and requests to the board. Business owner Frank Clement said he was ordered to remove banners advertising his shop and that removal affected his walk‑in traffic: “I was told to take them down or face a $750 fine,” he said. Several speakers described heated in‑person interactions between candidates and students at recent meetings and urged civility.
Trustee Joel Geske, speaking in his capacity as chair of the finance committee during the board‑reports portion of the meeting, responded to many of the substantive questions. Geske said Goshen currently employs 142 people who are in training and that the company expects additional hiring soon: “Within the next 60 days, Goshen intends to hire between 200 and 250 more employees,” he said, and later described a phase‑two construction surge he said would create about 700 union jobs over roughly three years. Geske said the company offers paid positions and tuition assistance, and he urged residents to watch Goshen’s public recruiting channels.
On emergency planning and public safety, Geske and the board emphasized that fire and police chiefs — not elected officials — hold operational responsibility. Geske said the village will rely on mutual‑aid arrangements and a reverse‑911 system for mandatory evacuations and declined to release security‑sensitive emergency plans publicly: “If you don't believe me, by all means, go and talk to the fire chief,” he said, pointing residents to the department for technical details.
Opponents pressed the village for independent environmental review and for clarity about tax and permitting decisions. Resident David Keitkin asked why the village had not commissioned an EPA study and cited incidents nationally involving lithium battery fires and chemical releases. Other residents questioned a reported $2,000,000 tax abatement and whether that amount would reduce funding available to schools.
Board members and staff offered procedural clarifications during and after public comment. Village Administrator Chris LaRocque stated he is not conducting plant inspections and confirmed the village hired a third‑party reviewer, BNF Technical, to perform technical reviews and inspections. Several residents also discussed a February ordinance change that restructured some village positions and led to tonight’s slate of appointments.
The meeting did not produce a new vote or change in permitting for Goshen; the board approved routine consent‑agenda items and confirmed a set of temporary appointments created under the February ordinance. The public comment period, however, underscored continuing divisions in the community and repeated requests for technical studies and public records related to the Goshen project.
Looking ahead, Geske said job fairs and formal Goshen postings should begin within weeks and encouraged residents to apply; opponents said they will continue to pursue legal and administrative reviews.
