Multiple residents and community organizers used the public comment period at Monday’s Janesville Common Council meeting to press for more transparency and public engagement around proposals to locate a data center at the former GM/JETCO site on the city’s South Side.

Cynthia Caldwell, a South Side resident, said she and neighbors oppose placing a data center anywhere in Janesville. Organizer Angelina Yu, who identified herself with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, criticized nondisclosure agreements she said have blocked public scrutiny of deal terms and asked the council to reject deals that leave residents without adequate notice or meaningful engagement. Sam Nemitz, an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, urged the elected council to demand release of proposals and to refuse last‑minute, "take it or leave it" deadlines; he described data centers as "permanent and massive consumers" of water and energy.

Brent Sutherland and others questioned whether a data center is the best economic use of the former GM site, noting the site’s rail and highway infrastructure may suit traditional manufacturing better.

City Manager Kevin Lehner told the council that staff are continuing to evaluate data center proposals. He said the one key piece of information still outstanding is an "indicative study," expected from Alliance (the consultant named in the meeting), to identify how much power can be delivered to the site; the power assessment will dictate next steps and which proposals are feasible. Lehner said staff are "collecting as much information as we possibly can" and acknowledged community concern, but said the city needs the indicative study to decide whether to recommend any proposal.

No formal action or vote on the data center site occurred during the meeting. Council members and staff did not announce a schedule for public release of proposals; residents at the meeting asked that the full proposals and milestones be published well in advance of any decision.

Several public commenters requested a stronger role for an advisory board and criticized reliance on small, word‑of‑mouth outreach; city staff said an advisory board exists but does not have final decision‑making authority.