Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Development Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press trustees over Goshen battery plant safety, transparency and zoning
Summary
Several Manteno residents used public comment at the Feb. 3 board meeting to press trustees for details about a proposed Goshen battery plant, raise safety and evacuation concerns, and accuse village leaders of poor transparency; trustees responded with budget and process explanations but no new safety plan was announced.
Several residents used the public comment period at the Feb. 3 Village of Manteno Board of Trustees meeting to press elected officials for information and emergency-planning details related to the proposed Goshen battery plant and to decry the board’s transparency.
The most direct charge came from Francine Fatima, who asked why the village rezoned land “from light industrial to heavy industrial” and said that change “opened a Pandora’s box” that allowed the company to “take root here.” Fatima also accused state officials and the village of being aligned with policies she opposes.
Tim Finnegan, who said he attended the public hearings, asked what the village has implemented to protect residents in the event of a major fire at the Goshen plant. “What warnings will be for the school to evacuate and seek refuge?” Finnegan asked, and he pressed whether the village or mayor signed a nondisclosure agreement that limited what could be disclosed at public hearings. “Isn’t it true … the public meetings were a sham because the mayor … signed an NDA, silencing you and the rest of the board?” he said.
Other speakers raised related concerns. Paul Motel, who identified himself as a candidate for trustee, asked why information about recent levy and tax-levy documents was not posted on the village website. Bob Foresight and Mike Berry faulted trustees for what they described as “good old boy politics,” lack of environmental study and a continued absence of a published fire plan or other emergency procedures for the plant. Berry said he and other residents have seen out-of-area campaigners handing out “go for Goshen” signs and reiterated concerns about whether village first responders have equipment and radios adequate to coordinate with the plant.
Trustees and staff answered questions about municipal budgeting and the timing of public records rather than announcing any new safety or evacuation protocols. In response to repeated calls for more information, one trustee said the budget and related documents are posted by public hearing and urged residents to consult the posted materials; a village finance official described the municipal budget process and noted public hearings and an annual audit. The village confirmed that animal control services will be provided through an intergovernmental agreement with Kankakee County (see separate article on votes at a glance).
Speakers who raised safety and transparency concerns asked for specific emergency-planning details — what hazard warnings would be used, whether families would be told to vacate, and what equipment the fire and police departments would have to respond to a large-scale battery fire. Those details were not provided at the meeting; trustees and staff said follow-up and routine budgeting work would continue.
The public session featured tense exchanges between speakers and trustees near the meeting’s end; an adjournment motion followed shortly afterward.
Why it matters: Residents who live nearest to the proposed plant are seeking clear, written information about evacuation protocols and first-responder capabilities. Village officials did not announce a new emergency plan or new safety equipment purchases during the meeting, leaving those questions unresolved going into follow-up work and upcoming committee meetings.
