Several Livingston County residents addressed the county board during the public comment period on May 15 about the proposed Panther Grove 2 wind project, offering both support and complaints about county processes surrounding recent Zoning Board of Appeals hearings.

Charles Hicks of Greenmont urged the county to adopt a rule barring replacement of a Zoning Board member during an active hearing, saying the replacement of a zoning board president during a wind-farm hearing created an appearance of political manipulation.

Tom Klassick of Dwight told the board he had observed what he described as “special access” granted to Panther Grove 2 personnel, including use of county building space, equipment and staff after hours. Klassick asked the county board to direct the State’s Attorney to investigate whether public facilities and personnel were improperly used to benefit the private applicant. “These actions of preferential treatment leaves one to ask, what is the county board or employees getting from or benefiting from these actions?” he said.

Other speakers supported the project. Dwayne Otto, a landowner near Gridley, told the board the people most affected live inside the project footprint and, he said, those residents overwhelmingly support the project. “What matters most is that you honor the convictions of the people most impacted by the project,” he said.

Greg McKinley of Nebraska Township described his family’s multi-generation experience with wind projects and said prior projects had paid on time and addressed issues such as tiling damage. He urged the board to approve Panther Grove 2, calling it an opportunity for renewable energy and local tax benefits.

Randy Bounds, who said he farms in Pike Township and is within the project footprint, said all 32,000 acres in the proposal are “signed up” and claimed each acre would receive a per-acre payment “based on roughly 5% of royalty fee,” which he characterized as “a hundred and $50 an acre plus.” Bounds said the project could substantially increase local tax bases, including producing what he described as a significant boost to school revenue.

No official zoning decision or board motion on Panther Grove 2 was made at the May 15 meeting; the remarks were submitted during the public comment period. Board members did not announce a formal investigation or policy change at the meeting in response to the allegations of preferential treatment.