Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 17 2026 - Public Comment - Georgine Scott-Codiga1 Stefan Mercer From:Americans For Non-Profit Transparency <AFNPT@proton.me> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2026 10:56 AM To:Public Comments; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Kelly Ramirez; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Zachary Hilton Subject:EXTERNAL - PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR AUG 17, 2026 ITEMS 8.1 AND 9.2 Attachments:2026_08_16_COG_CC_PUB_COM_9.2.docx; 2026_08_17_COG_CC_PUB_COM_8.1.docx Public Comment Letter — Item 8.1 To: Mayor Bozzo and Members of the Gilroy City Council From: Georgine Scott-Codiga, Americans for Transparency Re: Ordinance Z 26-01 — Conflict of Interest and Recusal Mayor and Council Members, Item 8.1 decides who has the authority to decide: the public, through a Planning Commission hearing, or staff, alone, behind closed doors. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 for the public's version. Staff rewrote it to keep that authority for itself. Item 8.1 is not a standalone question. It is the rule that decides whether the public ever sees the inside of a hearing on the recycled water infrastructure now moving forward under Item 9.2. The City's own permit, Condition 53 of AS 20-23, states that infrastructure is "a distinct project… subject to compliance with CEQA." If that project requires an Environmental Impact Report, the version of Z 26-01 you adopt tonight is what determines whether the public gets a hearing on it, or whether staff decides alone. That is not my interpretation. That is what this ordinance does. Look at the pattern. The data center itself: one staff signature, no public hearing. This ordinance: the Planning Commission voted 6-0 for automatic public hearings on major projects; staff rewrote it to keep that decision for itself. The recycled water deal: staff is being authorized tonight, under Item 9.2, to negotiate and sign an agreement with SCRWA with no public vote on the terms — the public finds out after it's done, if at all. Three times, on three connected decisions, the same result: staff decides, the public is told afterward. We asked for a temporary moratorium in June. You didn't adopt it. We have packed City Hall on this project and this ordinance, in person, more than once. Written questions submitted to every member of this Council have gone unanswered. A formal request under Government Code §65858, with a draft ordinance attached, has received no response. When a Council will not adopt what residents ask for, will not answer what residents write, and will not explain why — after being asked, repeatedly, in public and in writing — it is fair to ask a direct question: whose interests are you representing? Because the pattern makes clear it is not the people who elected you. That question is not rhetorical tonight. Council Members Bracco, Fugazzi, and Ramirez sit on the SCRWA Board. Your City Attorney, Andy Faber, is SCRWA's Acting General Counsel. Your City Administrator, Matt Morley, is SCRWA's Manager. This will matter even more directly on Item CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 9.2 — a recycled water agreement negotiated with SCRWA, on terms the public will not see until after it's signed. But it starts here, on 8.1: the rule that decides whether the public gets a hearing on that very agreement, or whether staff decides alone, again. I have filed a records request for any conflict-of-interest waiver on file for any of you regarding SCRWA matters. I do not expect an answer before tonight's vote — which is itself the problem: this Council is being asked to vote before the public can see whether a waiver even exists. I am not asking you to prove a violation tonight. I am asking you to recuse, or to state on the record, before this vote, whether you have sought and received a conflict-of-interest determination for votes touching SCRWA-connected matters — including this one. If you have, produce it. If you have not, that is something the public is entitled to know before, not after, you vote. The people of Gilroy have asked this Council, repeatedly, for one thing: a seat at the table before the decision is made, not a press release after. Tonight, on Item 8.1, you have the chance to give it to them. Adopt the Planning Commission's version of Z 26-01. Respectfully, Georgine Scott-Codiga Americans for Transparency AFNPT@proton.me Public Comment Letter — Item 9.2 To: Mayor Bozzo and Members of the Gilroy City Council From: Georgine Scott-Codiga, Americans for Transparency Re: Amazon Data Services Reimbursement Agreement and SCRWA MOU — Conflict of Interest and Public Trust Mayor and Council Members, Ratepayers in Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Martin have been paying for this recycled water infrastructure since at least 2015 — through Valley Water's Fund 61, Zone W-5. That is not speculation. It is in Valley Water's own contract records. We have been paying for infrastructure we do not have immediate access to, for a decade, before Amazon ever broke ground. And yet a sitting Council Member wrote in the Gilroy Dispatch that this pipeline "is being paid for by AWS." That statement has never been corrected or retracted. Why? Tonight you are being asked to approve an unsigned reimbursement agreement and authorize staff to negotiate an MOU with SCRWA. No numbers. No terms. No agreement to inspect. You are asking the public — who is currently paying for this infrastructure — to trust, with no legal documents in front of them, that Amazon is paying its share. Are you serious? This is not a new pattern — it is the same one this Council just repeated on Item 8.1: keep the decision at staff level, keep the public out until it's signed. 3 On this item, the conflict is not indirect — it is total. It directly touches SCRWA money. Council Members Bracco, Fugazzi, and Ramirez sit on the SCRWA Board that this agreement is with. The City Attorney negotiating on the City's behalf is SCRWA's own Acting General Counsel. The City Administrator directing staff is SCRWA's own Manager. You cannot sit on both sides of the table and tell this public, with a straight face, that you are representing Gilroy's interests and not SCRWA's, or Amazon's. If this Council would not recuse on Item 8.1, then recuse now, on the item that directly touches SCRWA money, or show the public the conflict-of-interest waiver that permits you to vote. Not next month. Tonight, before this vote. This Council owes ratepayers who have carried this cost for a decade, without being asked, a straight answer, in public, before another dollar or another signature goes out the door without one. Let the record show: if this Council votes tonight without recusal and without producing a conflict-of-interest determination, AFT will pursue every available avenue to challenge the validity of this vote — including referral to the Fair Political Practices Commission, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, and formal public records demands for every document this Council relied on to conclude no conflict exists. Do not approve Item 9.2 tonight. Table it until a signed Amazon contract, full terms, and public review are on the table — not staff's word for it. Respectfully, Georgine Scott-Codiga Americans for Transparency AFNPT@proton.me GSC for AFT Sent with Proton Mail secure email.