69����

Prior to that vote, Erdman unsuccessfully brought to the council a proposed amendment to the RFP, a requirement that a citizen advisory committee be established to oversee all current and future development proposals for the GM/JATCO site and surrounding properties.

Following considerable debate about whether to add that amendment language, Erdman’s proposal failed 5-2. Council member Heather Miller joined Erdman voting in favor of the amendment.

Erdman’s proposal

The proposed amendment, that Erdman printed off and gave to the council, urged the creation of a committee of at least 14 members nominated by city council members. Under Erdman’s plan, it would be responsible for reviewing developer proposals, evaluating neighborhood, environmental, fiscal, and infrastructure impacts, and providing formal recommendations to the city council.

Members would represent a broad range of expertise, including urban planning, sustainability, real estate and community advocacy, with at least one nominee per council member living within three-quarters of a mile of the site.

He said the committee would follow Wisconsin open meetings laws, hold at least two public listening sessions before any major recommendations, and publicly post all meeting materials.

Its evaluations would be based on developer qualifications, economic and job impact, environmental sustainability, infrastructure needs, and community mitigation plans.

The committee would have to convene within 45 days of adoption, with staff support provided to ensure independent and effective operation.

Reaction to amendment

Council member Paul Williams said Erdman’s amendment didn’t align with the type of government he feels the council is.

“We’re not a democracy, we’re a republic,” Williams said. “We’re represented by the seven people up here, and that’s our job, to do it.”

“We run for a position. We get elected. We do our best, we do our research. We want public input. We want openness. But I’m sorry, just reading over these guidelines and the committee that wants to be (formed) to do all of this research… to me, that seems like a different type of government.”

In response, Erdman said while the financial scale of the GM/JATCO redevelopment makes his halting or tabling of the RFP unrealistic, it’s essential to ensure that the public, especially southside residents, have a meaningful say in the process.

He voiced concern over we he sees is a lack of community involvement so far and emphasized the need for a mostly southside-specific citizen advisory committee to help shape the vision for the site.

“I can’t support this RFP unless there’s real public involvement, especially from the residents who live around the GM plant and have been asking for a voice in this for years,” Erdman said.

Council President Aaron Burdick said he was blindsided by Erdman’s amendment and didn’t feel like the council had adequate time to review it.

“I think that there is probably a better way in which to create a committee,” that will involve the people Erdman aims to involve, as well as “qualified expert members,” with the experience and knowledge needed to review future plans and proposals, he said.

“The project is appropriate, the amendment simply is inadequate, and I don’t think it was presented in a manner that is in keeping with the desire to be transparent and above board in the way in which we do business,” Burdick said.

Burdick further said of Erdman’s effort to form the committee, that he was “embarrassed to be the president of a council that would behave this way.”

Miller, a southside resident, meanwhile criticized the city for what she characterized as a repeated disregard for taking community input in major development decisions affecting the GM plant and the surrounding area.

She said despite months of requests, the city has yet to engage directly with southside residents and business owners about their needs or vision for the site.

Miller expressed frustration that decisions continue to be made, she said, without meaningful consultation. She called for a more inclusive and intentional process.

“We throw around the word ‘opportunity’ like it’s candy at a parade,” Miller said. “But you’ve never once asked the people who live there, is this an opportunity? We said we would do better. We are not doing better.”

Jimsi Kuborn, the city’s economic development director, had said in a memo to the council prior to Monday’s meeting that the data center idea is once-in-a-generation opportunity to position Janesville as a competitive destination for high-tech investment. Data center development would bring substantial capital investment, high-quality job creation, and long-term fiscal benefits to the community, Kuborn said.

She said a data center would align with Janesville’s broader economic development strategy, which emphasizes industry diversification, reuse of underutilized properties, and future-oriented growth. The former GM/JATCO site is equipped with existing power infrastructure capable of supporting 25 megawatts of energy, an asset for potential data center operators, she said.

After taking proposals from qualified developers, city staff would conduct background reviews, evaluate project feasibility, and recommend a preferred developer. The council would then consider entering into a non-binding letter of intent with a selected party, before moving forward with a final agreement.

The city is forming an advisory board of community stakeholders to help review future proposals for the site. The mission and scope of the advisory board will be presented to the council on Aug. 11.

Kuborns’ memo made clear that issuing an RFP does not commit the city to any single project or developer. Rather, she said it’s a chance to evaluate real-world opportunities and determine the best path forward for one of the city’s most prominent redevelopment sites.

Community pushback

Several residents told the city during a public comment period Monday night they feel the city is rushing this process without fully considering the potential environment impact of a data center.

“Please deny or table the RFP for the data center developers. Pause and reflect, ask more questions, get community input and then revisit this,” said Cassandra Pope, community activist, environmental advocate and a southside resident.

“I know we can’t stop digital and cyber growth, or the increase in AI technology. I’m not suggesting that all data centers are bad and should be avoided. I understand that they are necessary evil,” Pope continued. But “in the middle of a low income neighborhood within a mile of almost a dozen schools is not the place to put one,” she said.

Although most speakers were against issuing an RFP for a data center, representatives of Forward Janesville and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 890 in Janesville were supportive, saying it’s a step in the right direction.

Garrick Harwick, IBEW Local 890’s assistant business manager, spoke in support of potential benefits such as job creation for local electricians and steel workers. He urged the council to view the project as an opportunity to invest in the workforce, grow the local economy and modernize infrastructure.