Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Brownfield topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Janesville forms advisory board to guide redevelopment of former GM/JATCO site
Summary
At an inaugural meeting in September 2025, the city briefed the new advisory board on the former GM/JATCO property’s history, contamination status and planning steps; the board elected Mick Gilbertson chair and Lindsey Bittorf vice chair and will help select a planning consultant through an RFQ/RFP process.
The City of Janesville on Sept. 2025 convened the newly created GM/JATCO Advisory Board to help guide redevelopment of the city-owned former General Motors and JATCO properties, city manager Kevin Laner said at the advisory board’s first meeting.
Laner summarized the site’s history and legal and environmental status and told members the board’s role will be to represent community priorities, advise on a conceptual redevelopment framework and help select a planning partner. “This is a very unique opportunity, to participate in a very collective engagement process, to help determine the future of a very important piece of property,” Laner said.
Why it matters: The city now owns the bulk of the roughly 250‑acre former GM/JATCO complex, a long‑vacant industrial property that the city has identified as blighted and placed inside Tax Increment District 42. The site’s ownership and the TID are intended to give Janesville tools to shape remediation and redevelopment; board members will advise city staff and the planning commission and city council as the city seeks a consultant and develops a conceptual plan.
Site history and environmental status
Laner and Ayers Associates project manager Bill Hony reviewed the site chronology and environmental context. The property hosted tractor and automobile production beginning in the early 20th century, reached a peak employment of about 7,000 in the 1970s and saw the assembly line close in April 2009. The city said Commercial Development Corporation acquired the properties from GM in 2017; demolition of the GM plant began in 2018.
Hony defined the site as a brownfield — “a property where there is perceived or actual contamination or blight” — and said the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a post‑closure letter with continuing obligations in 2020. That DNR closure, Hony and Laner emphasized, does not mean the site is fully cleaned: contamination on much of the site remains in soil beneath large areas now capped by asphalt and concrete. According to Ayers, available studies show no documented groundwater or vapor intrusion issues thus far, but contamination will need to be managed if areas of cap are removed during redevelopment.
Remediation options described at the meeting include capping in place (retaining impermeable surfaces), moving contaminated soils to another on‑site repository, or removing them entirely. Any change that “touches” the closed site requires a plan filed with the DNR and, where appropriate, a postclosure modification, Hony said.
Planning process and consultant selection
Ayers and city staff outlined the next steps for planning. The city intends to issue a qualifications or scope/cost solicitation (RFQ or RFP) for a planning consultant; staff recommended a qualifications‑based selection given the site’s complexity and brownfield conditions, with an RFQ that asks firms to provide hourly rates. Laner said the city expects an RFQ/RFP to be issued in October 2025, selection work in November–December, and conceptual planning work during 2026 with a potential final plan presented to the city council late in 2026, subject to change.
Board role and community engagement
The board’s duties, as described in the city resolution establishing the body, include developing a conceptual redevelopment framework, guiding environmental remediation readiness, advising on site identity and marketing, promoting sustainable economic development, and conducting community engagement. Laner said the city will provide staff support and legal guidance regarding open meetings and open records requirements; he reminded members that deliberations about board decisions must be public and that records related to their board work may be subject to public records requests.
Elections and next steps
At the end of the meeting the advisory board held nominations and elected Mick Gilbertson as chair and Lindsey Bittorf as vice chair by voice vote. The meeting concluded with a scheduled site tour; staff asked members to consider frequent public outreach to bring residents into the planning process.
Votes at a glance
- Election of chair: Motion to nominate Mick Gilbertson (mover: Craig DeGarmo; second: Kevin Laner). Outcome: motion carried by voice vote; Gilbertson accepted the role.
- Election of vice chair: Motion to nominate Lindsey Bittorf (mover: Craig DeGarmo; second: Lindsey Bittorf). Outcome: motion carried by voice vote; Bittorf accepted the role.
The advisory board will continue public meetings and will participate in selecting the planning consultant and shaping a conceptual plan for redevelopment. A site tour followed the meeting.
