Agenda, special meeting, third session — Fairfield City Council, June 9, 2026

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA

Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:00 p.m.

Harry T. Price Memorial Council Chamber
1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 or Via Zoom

NOTICE TO PUBLIC
The City of Fairfield is committed to providing meeting facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and/or have language barriers. To request meeting materials in alternative formats, or to request a sign language interpreter, realtime captioning, or other accommodation, please contact the City Clerk's Office, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting at (707) 428-7400.

For individuals with hearing or speaking limitations, dial 711 or (800) 735-2922 (English). For Spanish, Tagalog or other language, please dial (800) 855-3000 and provide the communication assistant with the following City telephone number: (707) 399-4010.

DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:

Pursuant to Government Code 84308, City Council Members are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the City Council Member received more than $500 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City's decision on the agenda item in the 12 months prior to the date the item is on the agenda. Members of the City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $500 to a City Council Member in the 12 months prior to the date the item is on the agenda are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceedings. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient City Council Member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk before the agenda item or by verbal disclosure during consideration.

REMOTE APPEARANCE
Members of the public can observe the meeting on Roku City of Fairfield, Xfinity Channel 26, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99, and web streamed live at www.youtube.com/FFCATV. The public may join the meeting via Zoom at: https://fairfield.ca.gov/zoomcitycouncil or via phone (408) 638-0968, Webinar ID: 814 7538 5275, Passcode: 7074287400
Pages
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
Councilmember Doug Carr
Councilmember Doriss Panduro
Councilmember Manveer Sandhu
Councilmember Scott Tonnesen
Councilmember K. Patrice Williams
Vice Mayor Pam Bertani
Mayor Catherine "Cat" Moy
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the council may do so at this time. The council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on the agenda for this meeting, but councilmembers may briefly respond to statements made or questions raised by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, request staff to report back to the council at a subsequent meeting, or place the matter on a future agenda. To speak on an agenda item please use the “raise your hand” feature or press *9 on your phone. Speakers are limited up to three minutes per item, as determined by the mayor.

D. NEW BUSINESS
D.1 CM Outside Counsel Investigation Report on Mayor’s Residency Under Quo Warranto
3 Council Discussion and Direction Regarding the Report Submitted by Outside Legal Counsel Investigating the Mayor’s Residency Status Under the Quo Warranto Process
Funding Source: $66,170; General Fund
Contact: David Gassaway, (707) 428-7400
D.2 CM Request for Reimbursement by Mayor Moy for Legal Fees Related to Quo Warranto Process
141
Discussion and Direction on Mayor Moy’s Request for Reimbursement of Her Legal Fees Related to the Quo Warranto Process
Funding Source: General Fund
Contact: David Gassaway, (707) 428-7400
E. ADJOURN
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City of Fairfield to all or a majority of the Fairfield City Council less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at City Hall, in the 4th floor lobby, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California during normal business hours.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
I, Esther Beavers, Deputy City Clerk, do hereby certify that I have caused a true copy of the above notice and agenda to be delivered to each of the members of the Fairfield City Council, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law and that this agenda was posted at City Hall, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California on Wednesday, May 27, 2026.

Page 2 of 142 ends

Agenda Item No: D.1

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 9, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: CM Outside Counsel Investigation Report on Mayor’s Residency Under Quo Warranto

Council Discussion and Direction Regarding the Report Submitted by Outside Legal Counsel Investigating the Mayor’s Residency Status Under the Quo Warranto Process

Funding Source: $66,170; General Fund

Contact: David Gassaway, (707) 428-7400

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
City Council voted unanimously 6 -0 (with Mayor Moy absent) to release reports investigating Mayor Catherine “Cat” Moy’s residency in Fairfield under the quo warranto process under California Code of Civil Procedure.

DISCUSSION
In December 2025, the council retained outside legal counsel Gary Winuk from the Kaufman Legal Group. Mr. Winuk presented in closed session o n January 20, 2026 , about the quo warranto process and relevant case law. On direction from council, Mr. Winuk produced an initial report in March 2026, on information submitted to him through an encrypted and secure email address.

On March 10, 2026, the council met in Closed Session to review the report. At that meeting, the council voted 4-3 to procced with further proactive investigation by Mr. Winuk. The council set 60 days and a budget of $25,000 for additional investigation by Mr. Winuk.

On May 20 , 2026, the council again met for Closed Session. However, before entering closed session, and after public comments, the council discussed releasing the reports to the public. The

Page 3 of 142 ends

council voted unanimously to release the reports and schedule a special meeting on June 9, 2026, for public discussion.

Attached are the two reports produced by Mr. Winuk, along with all exhibits.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Prior to the March 10, 2026, Closed Session meeting, the invoices for Kauffman Law Group for Mr. Winuk’s time totaled $32,665. Since March 10, invoices received total $18,417.50 for total expenditure through April 2026 (last month of invoice) of $51,082.50. The council authorized a cap of $25,000 after March 10, leaving $6,582.50 to be invoiced for services render ed in May 2026.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
N/A

COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney’s Office

STAFF CONTACT
David Gassaway, City Manager
(707) 428-7400
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Memo from Outside Counsel dated March 9, 2026 Attachment 3: Investigative Report from Outside Counsel dated May 20, 2026 Attachment 4: Exhibits to Investigative Report

Page 4 of 142 ends

KAUFMAN LEGAL GROUP

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 ma in 213.452.6565 fax 213.452.6575 www.kaufmanlegalgroup.com

MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Fairfield
From: Gary S. Winuk, Outside Counsel
Kaufman Legal Group, APC
Re:

File No.:

Date:

Residency Status of Mayor Catherine Moy
COF6509.001
March 9, 2026
You have requested
advice regarding whether the evidence submitted to outside counsel about whether City of Fairfield (“City”) Mayor Catherine Moy meets the residency requirements articulated under State law to remain eligible to continue her term as Mayor and, if not, what remedies are available to the City Council.

Procedural Background
Outside counsel
was retained by the City of Fairfield in November 2025 to provide advice to the City Council and Mayor regarding the quo warranto process found in State law to potentially challenge the eligibility of Mayor Catherine Moy to continue to serve as Mayor of the City due to questions about her residency within the City limits. A closed session meeting of the City Council was scheduled and conducted on January 20, 2026, for outside counsel to provide a presentation on the residency requirements for elected officials contained in State law, and the quo warranto process for potential removal of a public official who no longer qualifies for their elected office.

At the conclusion of the closed session meeting, outside counsel was directed to gather relevant and verified information related to the residency of Mayor Moy. This information was to come from two sources. First, any member of the public, or any member of the Council, would be permitted to submit relevant and verified information to outside counsel via e-mail. To facilitate this process, a Proton e-mail account was set up by outside counsel to receive such information.

The date by which the public could send such information was February 4, 2026. To further solicit such information, an email was drafted for distribution by Councilmembers to anyone in the public with information, which included the Proton e-mail address and the February 4, 2026, deadline. No information was submitted to outside counsel’s Proton e-mail address either before or after (as of the date of this memorandum) the February 4 deadline.

Mayor Moy was also required to provide any relevant and verified information regarding her residency to outside counsel by February 4, 2026. Mayor Moy provided a packet of information, detailed below, by the February 4 deadline. Mayor Moy’s information was forwarded to outside counsel via overnight mail by the City staff.

Page 5 of 142 ends

Memorandum to City of Fairfield March 9, 2026 Page 2 Outside counsel was required to provide a draft of this memorandum to Mayor Moy by February 16, 2026. Outside counsel provided the draft memorandum on that date. Mayor Moy was then required to provide any comments or responses to the draft memorandum by February 27, 2026. Mayor Moy provided her comments on the draft memorandum by that date, On March 1, 2026, Council Member Williams sent an e-mail to City Attorney David Lim requesting that outside counsel review the candidate papers filed by Mayor Moy to run for County Supervisor in the 2026 election cycle. Mr. Lim sent this message to outside counsel the same day. This request for additional information was outside the February 4, 2026, deadline established by the City Council for the receipt of information. However, outside counsel requested Mayor Moy’s permission to access these records, in order to provide a more complete factual record. Mayor Moy granted her permission to the Registrar to provide the requested information, which greatly sped up the ability for outside counsel to obtain it. Outside counsel then spoke with the Registrar, who provided the relevant information via telephone. All relevant, verified information was included in the preparation of this memorandum. Relevant Legal Standard to Determine Residency The City of Fairfield is a General Law City. General Law Cities, as opposed to Charter Cities, are required to follow State statues, and may not adopt ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of State law. Therefore, State law regarding the residency requirements of City elected officials, including the Mayor and City Councilmembers, must be followed, along with any Municipal ordinances that are not in conflict with State law. The City’s Municipal Code provides that Members of the City Council shall be elected “by District” as defined in California Government Code Section 34871. It also states that the Mayor shall be elected by a city-wide election of eligible voters residing in the City of Fairfield. Further, it states that “(a) person shall not be eligible to be elected to be a Member of the City Council unless he or she is otherwise qualified as required by law, resides in the geographical area making up the district from which he or she is nominated to be elected and is a registered voter of the City of Fairfield at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate.” (Municipal Code Section 2A.03.) Government Code Section 34871 provides that “(t)he term “by districts” shall mean election of members of the legislative body by voters of the district alone. “Geographical area making up the district” is defined to mean the district, and in the case of elections from districts shall mean the entire city except with respect to the residence requirements imposed by Government Code Section 34882. Section 34882 states that “(a) person is not eligible to hold office as a member of a municipal legislative body unless he or she is otherwise qualified, resides in the district and both resided in the geographical area making up the district from which he or she is elected and was a registered voter of the city at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate.”

Page 6 of 142 ends

Memorandum to City of Fairfield March 9, 2026 Page 3 Residency is also referred to in Government Code Section 36502. This Section, which identifies when a vacancy occurs in a local elected City office, provides that a person is not eligible to hold office as councilmember unless she is at the time of assuming the office an elector of the city, and was a registered voter of the city at the time nomination papers were issued to the candidate. It also states that “(i)f, during his or her term of office, he or she moves his or her place of residence outside of the city limits or ceases to be an elector of the city, his or her office shall immediately become vacant.” The Government Code provides certain “rules” for residency, as follows: (a) It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he or she returns in seasons of repose. (b) There can only be one residence. (c) A residence cannot be lost until another is gained. (d) The residence of the parent with whom an unmarried minor child maintains his or her place of abode is the residence of such unmarried minor child. (e) The residence of an unmarried minor who has a parent living cannot be changed by his or her own act. (f) The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. (g) A married person shall have the right to retain his or her legal residence in the State of California notwithstanding the legal residence or domicile of his or her spouse. (Government Code Section 244.) Residency is further defined for voter registration purposes under Elections Code Section 349, which states that: “a) “Residence” for voting purposes means a person's domicile. (b) The domicile of a person is that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only one domicile.” (c) The residence of a person is that place in which the person's habitation is fixed for some period of time, but wherein he or she does not have the intention of remaining. At a given time, a person may have more than one residence. (Elections Code Section 349.) Both sections require the union of act and intent to determine residence. California courts and the Attorney General’s office have applied this basic principle when considering the residence of public officials. For example, courts have held that “[d]espite the fact that the terms residence and domicile are often used synonymously, residence is not a synonym for domicile, and its meaning in particular statutes is subject to differing construction, depending on the context and

Page 7 of 142 ends

Memorandum to City of Fairfield March 9, 2026 Page 4 purpose of the statute in which it is used. (Kirk v. Board of Regents (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 430, 434-435.) In Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc., 206 Cal. 515, 520, the Court ruled that “The question of residence is largely dependent upon the intent of the person whose residence is the subject of inquiry.” Similarly, in Chambers v. Hathaway, (1921) 187 Cal. 104, 105, the Court found that “Where a person has two dwellings in different places and resides a part of his time in one place and a part of the time in another alternatively, the question which of the two places is his legal residence is almost altogether a question of his intent. If a party has two residences, that will be esteemed his domicile which he himself selects or deems to be his home, or which appears to be the center of his affairs, or where he votes or exercises the rights and duties of a citizen." In interpreting the term “residency” found in Government Code Section 244, the California State Supreme Court has ruled that the term "residence" as used in section 244 means "legal residence" or "domicile." (Walters v. Weed (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1, 7; Smith v. Smith (1955) 45 Cal.2d 235, 239; see also Fenton v. Board of Directors (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113.) The test for determining a person's domicile is physical presence coupled with an intention to make that place his or her permanent home. (Fenton v. Board of Directors, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at 116.) A domicile, once acquired, continues until it is shown that a new domicile has been acquired. (DiMiglio v. Machore (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268.) The Attorney General’s office has opined on this issue as well. In 72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 8, (1989), the Attorney General’s office stated that: ". . . While the question of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact, many factors enter into the equation, including where an individual is registered to vote and his or her address for mail, where tax returns are filed, where an automobile is registered, and where a homeowner's exemption or renter's credit is taken. However, the critical element is that of intent. While declarations of intent are significant, they are not determinative. The acts must be examined as well." (Id., at p. 14.) In short, the determination of residency is a very fact specific question. It must be undertaken with an eye towards determining the public official’s intent, when matched with the factual scenario presented. Relevant factors in other cases that have either been pursued criminally or civilly, have included: voter registration; address for mail; where tax returns are filed; where an automobile is registered; where children go to school; where the public official spends their time; and where a homeowner's exemption or renter's credit is taken. Again, however, this is not an exhaustive list, and other facts may help to determine intent.

Page 8 of 142 ends

Memorandum to City of Fairfield March 9, 2026 Page 5 Residency Facts As mentioned previously, the only facts that were provided to outside counsel were those provided by Mayor Moy, and those provided by the County Registrar. Thus, these are the only facts that were considered in making the outside counsel’s finding. No outside research was conducted by the outside counsel, with two exceptions. First, the residency addresses provided by the Mayor was searched online to: (1) confirm that they were within the boundaries of the City of Fairfield and (2) view an online picture of the Mayor’s stated current residence on Google to confirm that it was an apartment building and appeared to be currently occupied and not an abandoned property. Second, in response to Councilmember Williams’ request for outside counsel to review the relevant information contained in Mayor Moy’s County Supervisor candidate paperwork, outside counsel obtained the residence disclosed by Mayor Moy in those documents. The Mayor provided outside counsel several documents and a cover letter that were related to three properties. All properties are located within the City boundaries of the City of Fairfield. In the Mayor’s response to outside counsel’s draft report, the only comment provided by the Mayor requested outside counsel to protect the confidentiality of her property addresses to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the properties are referred to in this memorandum as “Property One,” “Property Two,” and “Property Three.” Further discussion regarding the specific location of these properties can be had, at the Council’s discretion, during the closed session meeting on March 10, 2026. However, the Council should exercise caution with this information, given the Brown Act’s restrictions on the release of information obtained during a Council’s closed session meeting. For Property One, the Mayor states that this she and her husband owned this property and it was her residence at the time she became a candidate for Mayor. She states that this property was vacated by her and her husband in 2025. In support of this contention, the Mayor provided three utility bills (two with her name and one with Ken Moy’s name) from November and December 2022 that reflect the address she provided for Property One. Property One is located within the City of Fairfield. Property Two has been owned by the Mayor since 2001 and is described by her as an investment property. She states that she rents this property to tenants and does not and has not resided there during the relevant period of 2022 through present. However, the property has a walnut farm which she and her family maintain. She has also spent some nights there in an office space she and her husband built for her husband’s business and have held family functions and parties there through the present day. The Mayor states that she does much of her business there, but it is not her residence. In support of this the Mayor provided tax documents from 2023 and 2024, including Supplemental Income and Loss statements reflecting the status of the property as not being her residence. The Mayor states that she pays insurance rates and loan rates consistent with the property being used as a commercial space. Further, the Mayor provided a copy of her 2024 Statement of Economic Interests (“SEI”), which discloses the property on Schedule B, along with the required tenant and rental income disclosures. Primary residences are not disclosable on

Page 9 of 142 ends

Memorandum to City of Fairfield March 9, 2026 Page 6 SEIs, only other properties such as investment properties located within the City’s boundaries, or two miles outside the City’s boundaries. No other properties were disclosed on her 2024 SEI. Property Three is where the Mayor states that she resides and is her domicile. It is located within the City of Fairfield. Mayor Moy states that, when vacating Property One, her family had intended to purchase a condominium within the City of Fairfield. However, economic conditions were not favorable to a purchase, so she and her family moved in with a family member at Property Three. She states that many of the family’s possessions are in a storage container that they rent that is currently located on Property Two. A receipt for the cost of this rental was provided by the Mayor in support of this contention. The Mayor states that she intends to purchase another property in Fairfield as her next residence and intends to remain a resident of Fairfield. She further states that she purposely chose to stay with the family member on Property Three because that family member resides in Fairfield, which reflect her intent to remain in the City and continue to be eligible for the office of Mayor. She also provided confirmation of her voter registration at Property Three, and a document from the City of Fairfield that indicates she receives correspondence from the City at that address and has notified the City that this is her residence. The County Registrar also confirmed that this was the address that Mayor Moy declared as her residence in her candidate paperwork for County Supervisor. Last, the Mayor states her unequivocal intent to remain a resident of the City of Fairfield. Outside Counsel’s Determination of Residency Outside counsel makes this determination based solely on the facts presented. While there may or may not be other relevant facts that exist, counsel can only consider the relevant and verified information presented, per the instructions of the City Council at the January 20, 2026, closed session meeting. Note that Counsel is not aware of any other relevant facts related to the topic. Consideration of the potential removal from office of a public official is a serious topic that should be handled with care. The California Supreme Court has recognized this. In Carter v. Com. on Qualifications etc., (1939) 14 Cal.2d 179, 182, the court held that: “[T]he right to hold public office, either by election or appointment, is one of the valuable rights of citizenship . . . The exercise of this right should not be declared prohibited or curtailed except by plain provisions of law. Ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of eligibility to office. . . ." Here the facts presented weigh clearly in favor of determining that Mayor Moy is a resident of the City of Fairfield and has been so continuously since her election in 2022. She has provided unrefuted evidence to support that her residence was at Property One in Fairfield from 2022 through 2025. She further provided unrefuted evidence that her current residence is at Property Three, and that she has resided there from the time she left Property One through the present.

Page 10 of 142 ends

Memorandum to City of Fairfield March 9, 2026 Page 7 As noted previously, the confluence of fact and intent must be used to determine residency. Here, the Mayor has stated her unequivocal intent to remain a resident of the City of Fairfield. This intent is matched with all the available facts to make the determination. The Mayor is registered to vote at Property Three, has provided the City that address as her residence, and receives her City correspondence there. Further, there is no evidence in the record to support the contention that she lives anywhere else. Absent any evidence whatsoever that she maintains her residence outside the City of Fairfield, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the record presented is that the Mayor resides in Fairfield, has done so for many years, and permanently intends to remain as a resident of the City, where she is domiciled. Options for City Council Outside counsel does not believe there currently is evidence to support a finding that the Mayor is not a resident of the City of Fairfield. However, the ultimate decision of how to proceed lies with the City Council. Therefore, the City has the following options available to it: 1. Close the matter. The Council may deem the outside counsel’s report and findings sufficient to resolve the issue and take no further action. 2. Direct further investigation of the issue by outside counsel or another party to gather additional relevant information. The City has the authority to investigate the residency of one of its members and take action consistent with the factual findings. 3. Seek a quo warranto action from the Attorney General. As described at the January 20, 2026, closed session meeting, the Council has the authority to vote to request the Attorney General to give the City the ability to file a civil lawsuit to challenge Mayor Moy’s residency status and eligibility for office. It is outside counsel’s recommendation that further investigation be undertaken before such a submission, as it is likely to be rejected by the Attorney General’s office based on the current factual record. 4. Declare a vacancy in the Mayor’s elected office. Government Code Section 36502 states that, if, during her term of office, a public official moves her place of residence outside of the city limits or ceases to be an elector of the city, her office shall immediately become vacant. The City Council could vote to declare a vacancy and could then fill the vacant seat with a special election or appointment. There is some legal question as to whether this can be used to remove a public official where the residency issue occurs during the public official’s term (rather than at the time of nomination) (See 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 21.). It is outside counsel’s recommendation that further investigation be undertaken before such an action is taken, as the current factual record does not support declaring a vacancy based on the residency issue.

Page 11 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate

KAUFMAN LEGAL GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CITY OF FAIRFIELD
OUTSIDE COUNSEL GARY S. WINUK May 20, 2026

Page 12 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 2 INTRODUCTION In a closed session meeting on March 10th, 2026, the Fairﬁeld City Council directed Outside Counsel Gary Winuk to conduct an investigation and report back to the City Council within 60 days. The investigation was to determine the residency of Fairﬁeld Mayor Catherine Moy from the time she took out papers from the City Clerk’s oHice to run for Mayor in 2022 through the present. This Investigative Report covers the evidence that was gathered throughout the course of the investigation, along with applicable law and options for the Council to consider as next steps, if any are desired. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Outside counsel was retained by the City of Fairﬁeld in November 2025 to provide advice to the City Council and Mayor regarding the quo warranto process found in State law to potentially challenge the eligibility of Mayor Catherine Moy to continue to serve as Mayor of the City due to questions about her residency within the City limits. A closed session meeting of the City Council was scheduled and conducted on January 20, 2026, for outside counsel to provide a presentation on the residency requirements for elected oHicials contained in State law, and the quo warranto process for potential removal of a public oHicial who no longer qualiﬁes for their elected oHice. At the conclusion of the closed session meeting, outside counsel was directed to gather relevant and veriﬁed information related to the residency of Mayor Moy. This information was to come from two sources. First, any member of the public, or any member of the Council, would be permitted to submit relevant and veriﬁed information to outside counsel via e-mail. To facilitate this process, a Proton e-mail account was set up by outside counsel to receive such information. The date by which the public could send such information was February 4, 2026. To further solicit such information, an email was drafted for distribution by Councilmembers to anyone in the public with information, which included the Proton e-mail address and the February 4, 2026, deadline. No information was submitted to outside counsel’s Proton e-mail address either before or after the February 4 deadline. No information has been sent to the Proton e-mail address as a part of this investigation either.

Page 13 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 3 Mayor Moy was also required to provide any relevant and veriﬁed information regarding her residency to outside counsel by February 4, 2026. Mayor Moy provided a packet of information by the February 4 deadline. Mayor Moy’s information was forwarded to outside counsel via overnight mail by the City staH. Outside counsel provided a draft of this ﬁrst memorandum to Mayor Moy by February 16, 2026. Outside counsel provided the draft memorandum on that date. Mayor Moy was then required to provide any comments or responses to the draft memorandum by February 27, 2026. Mayor Moy provided her comments on the draft memorandum by that date. On March 1, 2026, Councilmember Williams sent an e-mail to City Attorney David Lim requesting that outside counsel review the candidate papers ﬁled by Mayor Moy to run for County Supervisor in the 2026 election cycle. Mr. Lim sent this message to outside counsel the same day. This request for additional information was outside the February 4, 2026, deadline established by the City Council for the receipt of information. However, outside counsel requested Mayor Moy’s permission to access these records, in order to provide a more complete factual record. All relevant, veriﬁed information was included in the preparation of the initial memorandum from outside counsel to the City Council. The initial memorandum is attached to this Investigative Report as Exhibit A. The ﬁnding of the initial memorandum was that there was unrefuted evidence that the Mayor resided at Property Three, based on the limited scope of the information received by outside counsel on the issue of the Mayor’s residency. On March 10, 2026, the City Council held a closed session meting to consider the initial memorandum. At that meeting the Council voted to direct outside counsel to conduct a further investigation of the Mayor’s residency. The direction included consideration of the Mayor’s residency from the time she acquired candidate nomination papers from the Fairﬁeld City Clerk through the present. The City Council directed the Investigative Report to the City Council to be provided within 60 days. The Report was provided to the City Council on May 10, 2026. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE PLAN Outside Counsel developed an Investigative Plan in response to the March 10, 2026, direction from the City Council. The Investigative Plan is attached as Exhibit B.

Page 14 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 4 The City Council authorized outside counsel to utilize an investigator to assist with gathering the evidence required for the Investigative Report. Outside counsel used a highly trained investigator to assist with the investigation. The personnel that worked to gather evidence for this report, along with their profession backgrounds, are as follows: Gary Winuk, Outside Counsel – Gary Winuk served as the Chief of the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission, a Deputy District Attorney, a military prosecutor and a special advisor to the San Diego District Attorney’s oHice’s public corruption unit. In his current practice, he advises public agencies and oHicials on government ethics issues and serves as outside counsel for the San Bernadino County campaign ethics commission, and the City of Chula Vista’s Campaign Contribution Enforcement Authority Panel. Elizabeth Lai, Investigator – Elizabeth Lai is a retired agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). She served in many assignments for the FBI, including human traHicking investigations, fraud investigations and, most recently, political corruption investigations with the Public Corruption Unit of the Sacramento oHice. The investigation consisted of the following: • Gathering of relevant, veriﬁed documents and records. • Witness interviews. • Receipt of information from Mayor Moy. • Legal analysis to outline courses of action for the City Council as to the residency of Mayor Moy during the relevant periods. • In-person unscheduled observation of the relevant properties. • Review of information provided to outside counsel at the e-mail address [email protected]. Note that no information was received at the e-mail address and is, thus, not referred to in this Report. The following speciﬁc investigation methods were used: Review of prior materials - Continued review of documents gathered in the ﬁrst phase of the investigation, in context of any relevant new information gathered in the course of the investigation.

Page 15 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 5 Witness Interviews with Relevant Witnesses – Outside counsel and Investigator sought to conduct interviews, administered under penalty of perjury, with the Mayor and any other relevant witnesses. Gather Additional Documents – Outside Counsel and Investigator sought to gather additional documents from the Mayor and any other relevant party that would assist in making the determination of the Mayor’s residence(s) during the applicable time period. Follow Up with Information Provided to Proton E-mail Account – Outside Counsel worked with the City to establish a dedicated e-mail account through the Proton e-mail service ([email protected]) to receive any information or documents from the public. No public information was provided, however. In Person Observation – Outside counsel and the Investigator conducted in-person observations of the relevant properties. RESIDENCY FACTS AS DETERMINED BY THE INVESTIGATION In the initial memorandum, the only facts that were provided to outside counsel were those provided by Mayor Moy, and those provided by the County Registrar. Thus, these were the only facts that were considered in making the initial ﬁndings and recommendations of the outside counsel. No additional research was conducted by the outside counsel for the initial memorandum, with two exceptions. First, the residency addresses provided by the Mayor was searched online to: (1) conﬁrm that they were within the boundaries of the City of Fairﬁeld and (2) view an online picture of the Mayor’s stated current residence on Google to conﬁrm that it was an apartment building and appeared to be currently occupied and not an abandoned property. Second, in response to Councilmember Williams’ request for outside counsel to review the relevant information contained in Mayor Moy’s County Supervisor candidate paperwork, outside counsel obtained the residence disclosed by Mayor Moy in those documents. In the initial memorandum, the Mayor provided outside counsel several documents and a cover letter that were related to three properties. In the Mayor’s response to outside counsel’s draft initial memorandum, the only comment provided by the Mayor requested outside counsel to protect the conﬁdentiality of her property addresses to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the properties are referred were referred to in the initial memorandum as “Property One, ” “Property Two, ” and “Property Three. ” Two additional relevant properties have since been identiﬁed by the Mayor and are included as part of this

Page 16 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 6 investigation, which will be referred to as “Property Four” and “Property Five. ” The redacted documents obtained as a part of the initial memorandum are attached to this Report as Exhibit C. This Report follows the practice of the initial memorandum by making eHorts to protect conﬁdential and other sensitive information. Substantive additional information has been obtained through the subsequent investigation that is disclosed in this Investigative Report. As detailed below, some of the additional information obtained is inconsistent with the information obtained in the initial memorandum as provided by the Mayor. Mayor’s Residence in 2022 Regarding Property One, the Mayor states that she and her husband owned this property and it was her residence at the time she became a candidate for Mayor in 2022. This property is located within the City of Fairﬁeld. She states that this property was vacated by her and her husband in March 2025. In support of this contention, the Mayor provided three utility bills (two with her name and one with her husband’s name) from November and December 2022 that reﬂect the address she provided for Property One. This information was provided as part of the initial memorandum. Also provided in the initial memorandum is the statement from the Mayor that she left her Property One home in response to her negative economic circumstances. She intended to buy another property in the City of Fairﬁeld but was unable to qualify for a home purchase due to her low income. This required her to seek to live with friends and relatives so she could remain a resident of the City. The investigator conducted several interviews regarding this property and the issue of the Mayor’s residence there. Speciﬁcally, she conducted three recorded interviews with neighbors to Property One.1 Each neighbor lived in one of three separate residences that were either adjacent to or in close proximity of Property One. These interviews were conducted under penalty of perjury. No notice was given to any of the neighbors in advance of the interviews. Each of the three neighbors stated under the penalty of perjury that Mayor Moy and her husband lived at the property in 2022 and continued to live there through early 2025. The 1 The recordings of witness interviews are in the possession of the outside counsel and are available for review. If requested, a professional transcription of the recordings can be obtained and provided to the Council.

Page 17 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 7 witnesses also stated that they saw the Mayor and her husband frequently at the home and in the neighborhood. Two of the three witnesses recalled that the Mayor and her husband had a dog while they lived at Property One and would see them walking the dog. This is consistent with the Mayor’s statement that she lived at Property One in 2022 and moved out in early 2025. Last, the Mayor provided a copy of her driver’s license to outside counsel, which reﬂected an address at Property One. Mayor’s Residence After Leaving Property One in Early 2025 In her initial statement for the initial memorandum, which was made via letter to outside counsel and not submitted under penalty of perjury,2 the Mayor stated that she moved into Property Three, an apartment located in the City of Fairﬁeld, after she moved out of Property One. The Mayor, as part of her response to this investigation, has since provided signiﬁcant additional information that was not included as part of her initial responses that is at least partially inconsistent with her initial statement. On March 26, 2026, outside counsel e-mailed the Mayor a series of questions. (attached as Exhibit D).) The Mayor provided responses through her counsel on April 23, 2026. (attached as Exhibit E.) In her response, the Mayor stated that she lived with a friend in a home in the City of Fairﬁeld (Property Four) from March 2025 through June 2025. She also stated that she moved into the Property Three apartment at the end of June 2025 and had a lease agreement for another property in January 2026 (Property Five) and, in fact, received the keys to Property Five on April 9, 2026. Property Five is located within the City of Fairﬁeld. Her declaration states that she “signed a lease to live at another house in the City of Fairﬁeld in January 2026 but did not move in until April 2026.” She further states in her declaration that she “told City Manager David Gassaway that I would temporarily stay at the Suisun Valley property (Property Three) while searching for a new Fairﬁeld home. He said “OK.”” She also states that “For a few weeks, Ken and I stayed together in the oHice space at the Suisun Valley property. During this time, we both continued to search for properties in Fairﬁeld for sale.” She continued: “In March 2025, I moved in with my friend, Kathy Sawyer Shishido3, and her adult daughter, Breanne, on Twain Court in Fairﬁeld. Ken stayed at the oHice. We have a French bulldog, and Kathy has a dog who can’t share a home with other dogs. We decided our bulldog and Ken would stay 2 See Exhibit C. 3 Certain names and addresses have been redacted to protect conﬁdential information.

Page 18 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 8 at the Suisun Valley property. It also gave us space apart to think and heal. Kathy, Breanne, and I lived together at the apartment, sharing in household duties, such as cooking, grocery shopping, and cleaning. I regularly conducted all of my ordinary day-to-day living activities at Kathy’s house. I had a key to the house. I spent time there when I was not at work, visiting Ken from time to time to make sure he was taken care of. Sometimes I would work remotely from the Suisun Valley oHice space to spend time with him. At about the end of June 2025, I moved into my daughter’s two-bedroom apartment on East Tabor Avenue in Fairﬁeld. I lived in the spare bedroom; my daughter and her boyfriend were in the main bedroom. Since we’re family, I didn’t sign a “lease, ” but because I was living with them, I contributed to the household in other ways. ” She continues in the declaration to state that “From June 2025 until March 2026, I occupied their spare bedroom – hung my clothes in the closet, kept belongings in the dresser, and generally conducted my ordinary day-to-day living activities there. I was planning on staying there as long as it took to ﬁnd a new Fairﬁeld house, and I even changed my voter registration and oHicial city documents to this address.” Mayor Moy submitted two witness declarations in support of these contentions. The ﬁrst was from the person with whom she states she resided with at Property Four from March 2025 through June 2025. Second is a declaration from the person from whom the Mayor states she is renting Property Five. These statements are attached as Exhibit F. One of the declaration submitted states that the owners of Property Five gave the keys to the Mayor on April 9 and that, as of April 22, 2026, the Property Five owners had moved into their new house. The declaration further stated they were “happy to be in our new home, but some of our things still remain at Berry Drive.” Mayor Moy made no mention of Property Four or Property Five, or the existence of the January 2026 Property Five lease, in her initial statement to outside counsel before the March 10, 2026, City Council closed session meeting. Nor did she disclose that she lived at Property Four for a period of time in 2025 during the initial review period. Thus, the outside counsel’s initial memorandum did not reﬂect this information and the Council did not have this information at the March 10, 2026, closed session meeting. Mayor Moy ﬁrst provided outside counsel with information about Properties Four and Five on April 23, 2026, nearly one week after the planned deadline for receipt of investigative information. Mayor Moy had been notiﬁed by outside counsel of this requested deadline.

Page 19 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 9 Outside counsel accepted the information from Mayor Moy despite its late submission in order to ensure the Mayor had a full opportunity to participate in the investigation. However, this accommodation caused signiﬁcant delays in the preparation of the Investigative Report and, given the signiﬁcant new information provided, required further investigation before the Report could be prepared. The results of the further investigation are detailed below. Investigative EKorts Regarding Property Three and Property Two Before receipt of the additional information regarding Property Four and Property Five, outside counsel and the Investigator made additional investigative eHorts beyond just the requests for information and cooperation from the Mayor. Speciﬁcally, outside counsel and the investigator conducted in-person observations of the property and interviews with witnesses at Property Two and at the Property Three apartment. Outside counsel and the investigator made an initial request for information to the Mayor on March 26, 2026. Again, this request made before obtaining knowledge of Property Four or Property Five. Outside counsel requested the following information: • An Interview with the Mayor and, separately, with her husband, conducted in person with outside counsel and the investigator under penalty of perjury. • Interviews with the other residents of the Property Three apartment. • A site visit at the Property Three Apartment. • A list of the names of all individuals who reside at Property Three (the apartment). • A list of the Mayor’s, the Mayor’s spouse’s and anyone else residing at Property Three’s vehicles including make, model, color, license plate number and model year and how long each person has owned the vehicle(s). • A list of any witnesses who live at Property Three that should be contacted to verify that the Mayor resides there. The Mayor declined to participate in an in-person interview and did not arrange interviews with other residents at Property Three. She did not permit a site visit at Property Three and did not provide any information regarding her vehicles. Last, she did not identify any witnesses at Property Three for outside counsel and the investigator to contact. The Investigator interviewed the on-site property manager at the Property Three apartment on April 1, 2026. The property manager provided a sworn, recorded interview. In the

Page 20 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 10 interview, the property manager stated that she had worked and lived on Property Three for many years. She knew all of the tenants in the Apartment in which the Mayor stated she lived. She did not know Mayor Moy and said she had never seen her on the property. She said the apartment was a two-bedroom apartment in which three people live. A woman (not the Mayor), her son and the Mayor’s daughter.4 She stated that she had been trying to contact the residents to have them sign a new lease, which would disclose current occupants and their vehicles. She said that the tenants had not come to the apartment oHice to see her to sign the lease and eventually stated, via text message, that they would be vacating the apartment in June 2026. The investigator viewed text messages between the witness and the tenants that conﬁrmed this statement. The witness further stated that the Mayor was not listed on the lease and had never paid the rent for the apartment. She showed the lease to the Investigator, who conﬁrmed that the Mayor’s name was not on the lease. A copy of the lease is attached as Exhibit H. She further stated that, to park at the apartment complex, residents needed to register their vehicles and park in assigned spots. She stated that the vehicles registered for the relevant apartment were a Blue Nissan Rogue and a Blue Nissan Versa. The relevant license plate numbers were provided to the Investigator, along with the name of the person to whom the car belonged. The assigned spots for the apartment complex were observed by the investigator and outside counsel. One spot contained a blue Nissan. The other contained another vehicle that was not the Mayor’s vehicle. The Mayor’s vehicle is a tan Chevy Suburban. Neither of the cars registered with the apartment were listed as belonging to the Mayor but rather were listed as belonging to two of the listed tenants. The witness also stated that dogs were not permitted at the apartments, unless the dogs were service dogs. Also on April 1, 2026, outside counsel and the investigator conducted an in-person observation of Property Three and Property Two. Speciﬁcally, outside counsel and the investigator observed all people and cars coming from and arriving from the Property Three apartment from 7:30 a.m. through 9:00 a.m. The Mayor was not observed coming to or leaving the property, nor was her vehicle observed in the parking lot. 4 The on-site manager identiﬁed the names of the tenants, but their names, and the name of the on-site manager are not speciﬁcally listed in the report to protect conﬁdentiality.

Page 21 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 11 Outside counsel and the investigator then went on the same day at 9:00 a.m. to observe Property Two in Suisun Valley. Outside counsel and the investigator drove onto a road adjacent to the property. The Mayor immediately came out of the “oHice” building on the property, which had the appearance of a small dwelling unit. Outside counsel and the investigator greeted the Mayor verbally. The Mayor instructed outside counsel and the investigator that they were on private property and needed to leave immediately. She further stated that she had retained counsel and that any communications should be made through her counsel. This was the ﬁrst time the Mayor had notiﬁed outside counsel that she was represented by counsel, and all future communicators were conducted through the Mayor’s counsel. The Mayor appeared to have come out of the “oHice” building before approaching the outside counsel’s vehicle. She stated to outside counsel and the investigator; “I’m here, as I’m here every morning. ” The Mayor, in her unsworn statement for the initial memorandum, had stated that she worked in the oHice at Property Two every day. However, she was not observed leaving her stated residence at the Property Three apartment from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. that day to drive to the Suisun Valley property. Once outside counsel and the investigator left Property Two, the Mayor entered her vehicle, a tan Chevrolet Suburban, and drove oH the property as well. This interaction was documented by the investigator via an investigative report. (See Exhibit G). Outside counsel and the investigator conducted a second day of unannounced, in-person observation on April 10, 2026. At approximately 6:30 a.m. the Mayor’s vehicle was observed parked by the “oHice” building on Property Two, under an outdoor carport. Outside counsel and the investigator then observed the Property Three apartment until 9:00 am, and the Mayor did not come to the apartment complex. This was documented by the investigator in a report with photos. (See Exhibit I). Property Two has been owned by the Mayor since 2001 and is described by her as an investment property. She states that she rents this property to tenants and claimed in her statement for the initial memorandum that she does not and has not resided there during the relevant period of 2022 through present. She initially stated that she has also spent some nights there in an oHice space she and her husband built for her husband’s business and have held family functions and parties there through the present day. The Mayor initially stated that she does much of her business there, but it is not her residence. In support of this the Mayor for the initial memorandum provided tax documents

Page 22 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 12 from 2023 and 2024, including Supplemental Income and Loss statements she contends reﬂect the status of the property as not being her residence. The Mayor stated that she pays insurance rates and loan rates consistent with the property being used as a commercial space. Further, the Mayor initially provided a copy of her 2024 Statement of Economic Interests (“SEI”), which disclosed the property on Schedule B, along with the required tenant and rental income disclosures. The Mayor did not provide any additional documents related to Property Two as part of this investigation. As noted previously, the Mayor now states that her husband resided at Property Two in Suisun Valley for a period of time. However, her statement provided on April 23, 2026, states that she resided at the Property Three apartment through April 9, 2026, when she moved into Property Five, despite her vehicle being observed at the Suisun Valley Property Two early in the morning on April 1 and April 10. Investigative EKorts Regarding Property Five On April 23, 2026, outside counsel was informed by the Mayor that she contends she had a signed lease for Property Five in place in January 2026 and moved into Property Five on April 9, 2026. In support of this statement, the Mayor submitted a copy of a lease between her and the property owner with the signatures redacted. On April 24, 2026, outside counsel requested the following information from the Mayor through her counsel: • A copy of the lease for the property without signatures redacted. • A complete list of any vehicles owned by the Mayor and her husband, along with make, model, year, color and license plate number. • A copy of proof that the utilities that the Mayor is now required to pay per the Property Five lease that are now in her name. • A copy of the ﬁrst rent check paid by the Mayor to the Property Five owner. Speciﬁcally, the check as processed by the bank. • Identiﬁcation of any speciﬁc nights she recalls staying at Property Three since January 1, 2026. • Whether the Mayor had notiﬁed the City of her change of address and if she has changed her voter registration information with the County. If she had changed her voter registration information, (as she did during the ﬁrst stage of this inquiry) authorization to contact the County Registrar to conﬁrm the change.

Page 23 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 13 • Whether the Mayor had acquired property insurance for Property Five, per paragraph 9 of the Lease agreement. • Whether the Mayor would permit an in-person site visit of the property by outside counsel and the investigator. The Mayor, through her counsel, provided responses to these questions. (See Exhibit J). Despite initially agreeing to allow an in-person site visit at Property Five, the Mayor changed her position on this and subsequently declined to allow the visit. Speciﬁcally, her counsel stated that “she5 is not comfortable with the walkthrough until her move out and the transition of her animal rescue to her new home is completed, so as to avoid disturbing the animals, maintain the privacy of her husband while he recovers (he just had another surgery on Monday and is also spending time at Berry Drive6 as the property is easier to access than his new home), and protect her own privacy as she completes their moveout with her daughters. Mayor Moy regrets that she made the walkthrough oHer to you before conﬁrming that Ms. Pedrioli was comfortable with it. To protect her personal and professional relationship with her landlord, Mayor Moy has to respect Ms. Pedrioli’s wishes.” Mayor Moy also declined to provide outside counsel with an unredacted copy of the lease, stating personal privacy reasons. She further declined to provide information regarding her vehicles, stating that the request as “cumbersome” and “invasive” of her privacy and stated it could lead to safety concerns for her and her family. The Mayor did provide a copy of a utility in her name. Her counsel stated that she only had garbage service in her name at Property Five and provide a “start of service” document from Republic Services. (Exhibit K). The document provided, however, does not have a property address listed on it. The document is dated April 21, 2026. In response to outside counsel’s request for a copy of the rent check paid by the Mayor, her counsel responded that “The landlord, Amy Pedrioli, has not yet cashed the check Mayor Moy provided to her. Mayor Moy has full use of the home, but Ms. Pedrioli does not wish to cash the check until she and her husband have completely moved out their belongings. 5 “She” in this context is referring to the Mayor’s new landlord. 6 This redaction refers to the Property Five address.

Page 24 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 14 In response to outside counsel’s request for identiﬁcation of any speciﬁc nights the Mayor recalls staying at Property Three, the Mayor’s counsel replied as follows: “The Mayor cannot recall speciﬁc dates she spent at the Suisun Valley property. Accordingly, the statement of Mayor Moy did not include the speciﬁc dates since she cannot attest to exactly what dates she stayed there. With the stress of the close of the sale of her property and moving out, she can only recall the general time frames. Moreover, the fact that Mayor Moy spent time at another property does not reﬂect a change in her domicile; as she has explained consistently, Fairﬁeld has always been her home, and it is where she intends to remain. State law does not prohibit oHicials from owning multiple properties and visiting them; to the contrary, it expressly contemplates this possibility and speciﬁes that this does not change a person’s domicile unless intent changes too.” The Mayor’s counsel also stated that Mayor Moy has notiﬁed the City of her address change and provided a screenshot of a document purporting to reﬂect this change. (Exhibit L). Counsel also stated that the Mayor has changed her voter registration to the address at Property Five. However, despite outside counsel’s request that the Mayor authorize the County Registrar to verify this with outside counsel, the Mayor did not provide the requested permission. In response to the question of whether the Mayor acquired property insurance for Property Five, her counsel responded that she had and provide a copy of an insurance policy conﬁrmation with the listed address of Property Five and a recent date on the start of the policy’s coverage. A copy of this conﬁrmation is attached s Exhibit M. The policy states its coverage is for one year. Outside counsel and the investigator also conducted unannounced, in-person observations of Property Five. On Sunday April 26, outside counsel observed Property Five at 6:20 a.m. The Mayor’s vehicle was not in the property’s driveway, or on any of the surrounding surface streets. In fact, there were virtually no cars parked on the street in the immediate area of the property. Further, the driveway to Property Five was blocked by a boat and trailer, which made access to the home’s garage impossible without moving the boat and trailer. Outside counsel then drove to Property Two in Suisun Valley and, at 6:30 a.m. observed the Mayor’s vehicle parked in the outside carport by the “oHice” structure. These observations were documented with photos, which are attached as Exhibit N.

Page 25 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 15 On Tuesday April 28, 2026, outside counsel and the investigator again conducted an in-person observation of Property Five and Property Two. At 6:16 a.m. no cars, including the Mayor’s vehicle, were located in the driveway or in the vicinity of Property Five. At 6:30 a.m., the Mayor’s vehicle was observed parked in the outdoor carport at Property Two. A report with photos reﬂecting this activity is attached as Exhibit O. MAYOR’S INTENT REGARDING RESIDENCY The Mayor has stated unequivocally that she intends to remain a resident of the City of Fairﬁeld. In both her initial unsworn statement and in her additional statement she has clearly and emphatically stated this intent. She has said that she intends to purchase another property in Fairﬁeld as her next residence and has stayed at or leased properties in the City of Fairﬁeld to maintain her residency. She has written in her declaration that she is registered to vote in the City of Fairﬁeld (at Property Three from March 2025 through April 9, 2026, and at Property Five from April 9, 2026, though present). She also contends she notiﬁed the City staH of her address at Property Three and of her new address at Property Five. The Mayor contends that she has provided the necessary information to demonstrate this intent. She stated that responding to the additional requests from outside counsel, in general, would be burdensome, an invasion of her and her family’s privacy, and may create safety risks for her family. As detailed below, intent is a key element in determining residency. However, intent must be coupled with actions to fully assess the issue. MAYOR’S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT The Draft Investigative Report was provided to the Mayor and all Councilmembers on Sunday, May 10, 2026. Because the Mayor did not respond to outside counsel’s questions until after the requested deadline and in order to provide the Report as close to the 60 days directed by the Council, a deadline for comments was set for close of business on May 12, 2026. The Mayor, through her counsel, provide comments on the draft Investigative Report. The comments on the factual issues raised in the Draft Investigative Report are below, along with the responses of outside counsel. Comment 1: “The report omits key facts that explain why the Mayor has been staying with family and friends in Fairﬁeld in the ﬁrst place. California’s housing crisis is a seemingly

Page 26 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 16 intractable public policy problem and Fairﬁeld, like much of the greater Bay Area, has been seriously impacted. Because housing stock is limited, home prices and rents have been surging notwithstanding eHorts to accelerate development of aHordable housing. This is particularly true in Fairﬁeld, which has historically been a more aHordable community in the greater Bay Area and has therefore attracted commuters and others priced out of the more expensive Bay Area cities. At the same time, 30-year home mortgage rates were approximately 6% in 2025 and have remained above 6%. Not even the Mayor was immune from this reality. Yet, nowhere does the draft report acknowledge that in 2024, the Mayor and her husband began to experience chronic ﬁnancial strain or that her main compensation is her $700 biweekly payment she receives from serving as Mayor. The draft report makes no reference to the fact that her husband cannot work due to a disability and that ﬁnancial strain forced them to sell the Fairﬁeld home where they raised their daughter. The draft report does not acknowledge the fact that during the weeks after the sale of the Potrero house concluded, the Mayor and Ken searched for a new Fairﬁeld residence to buy, constantly looked at online property sale websites, and contacted a realtor.” Outside Counsel’s Response: Outside counsel included the initial memorandum to the Council and the Mayor’s Declaration as attachments to the Investigative Report, which both provide this information. However, based on the Mayor’s counsel’s request, this information was added into the Residency Facts and Summary of Key Evidence sections of this Report. Comment 2: “Mayor Moy can address every piece of “evidence” the report relies on to undermine her and vociferously denies all “evidence” against her. She has consistently oHered to answer any questions and provide clariﬁcation as necessary. What Mayor Moy cannot do, however, is compel other individuals – particularly her family members, friends, acquaintances, or associates – to be subjected to this investigation.” Outside Counsel’s Response: Outside counsel requested an in-person, sworn interview with the Mayor, which was not granted. Outside counsel provided written questions to the Mayor on two occasions, but the responses provided by the Mayor did not address many of the questions posed. The Mayor never responded to outside counsel’s request to arrange witness interviews with those with whom she claimed to live. This request was made to the Mayor directly due to her continued stated concerns about privacy and perceived harassment of her and her family and friends.

Page 27 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 17 Comment 3: “During past conversations with Mr. Winuk on February 4, 2026, and the Council on March 10, Mayor Moy disclosed the fact of the Berry Drive lease. It is inaccurate to say that this information was withheld until the late stages of this investigation.” Outside Counsel’s Response: Outside counsel denies that the Mayor disclosed the Property Five lease to him on February 4, 2026. Further, outside counsel does not recall the Mayor referencing the Property Five lease during the March 10, 2026, City Council meeting, but welcomes further input from City Councilmembers on this issue. It is undisputed that the Mayor did not reference the lease or Property Five (or Property Four) in her initial written statement that was provided to outside counsel. Comment 4: “Mayor Moy already changed her voter registration to this address, and you may conﬁrm that with the Registrar of Voters.” Outside Counsel’s Response: Outside counsel requested, in writing, that the Mayor send an e-mail to the County Registrar to allow him to conﬁrm this information. Such permission is required by the County Registrar to release it. The Mayor provided this e-mail during the initial memorandum process but did not send a similar e-mail in response to outside counsel’s request to conﬁrm the current information. Comment 5: “the draft report asserts that Mayor Moy contends she already participated in a formal interview with Mr. Winuk. Draft Report at 22. Not so. Mayor Moy spoke with Mr. Winuk in early 2026. During that conversation, she provided information to him, and he asked questions and she answered them, but there is no dispute that this conversation with Mr. Winuk was not an interview under oath.” Outside Counsel’s Response: Outside counsel denies that the Mayor provided any information regarding her residency in any oral conversation at any time. The Mayor speciﬁcally refused to submit to an in-person interview with outside counsel. Outside counsel’s conversation with the Mayor in early 2026 consisted of responding to a question about the use of campaign funds for legal services and about making referrals for the Mayor to seek her own counsel. Outside counsel provided the Mayor, via e-mail, with referrals for her to seek her own counsel in response to this request. Comment 6: “You state that you and Ms. Lai conducted unannounced observations at Property Three on April 1 and April 10, 2026, incorrectly implying that the Mayor was living there at that time. See Draft Report at 12. As Mayor Moy has already explained, however,

Page 28 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 18 she was not living there consistently at that time. Instead, she had to split time between Property Three and Property Two while her move-in to Property Five was delayed.” Outside Counsel’s Response: The Declaration from the property owner of Property Five states that the Mayor was given the keys to the property on April 9, 2026, and began moving in that day. (See Exhibit F for full statement.) The property owner’s declaration further states that, as of April 22, 2026, at the latest, the property owner moved to a diHerent property. The Mayor declined to provide information about where she stayed during this period when asked via written questions by outside counsel. Comment 7: “To suggest that the Mayor was present at Property Two, you rely on the presence of a tan Chevy Suburban at that site. You improperly assume that the Mayor drives only that car. See Draft Report at 10. But the Mayor drives various vehicles from time to time, some of which are not registered in her name. These vehicles include: a Saturn, Ford truck, Chevrolet truck, a Subaru, and her sister’s Cadillac SUV . The tan 25-year old Chevy Suburban requires signiﬁcant maintenance; it has broken down recently and has been regularly parked at Property Two. One of the vehicles registered at Property Three belongs to her daughter and was driven by the Mayor when she lived there. We understand Ms. Lai received the identifying information regarding this vehicle when she interviewed the property manager at Property Three. The Mayor also regularly drives her sister’s car, a Cadillac SUV .” Outside Counsel’s Response: Outside counsel and the investigator observed the Mayor driving the tan Suburban when observing Property Two on April 1, 2026. Therefore, the vehicle was functional at least on that day. Further, the Mayor twice declined to provide a list of the vehicles she and others used when asked in writing by outside counsel. Further, the Mayor’s comment does not provide any speciﬁcity as to which vehicle she was driving on the dates of the in-person observations. Comment 8: “The report states that Property Three’s property manager says she never saw the Mayor there. Draft Report at 9-10. The Mayor strenuously disputes the accuracy of that statement. The property manager made the comment before she had been sworn in because the investigator forgot to do so until the very end. The fact that the property manager suggested the lease needed to be updated to list out each tenant in the apartment undermines the statement that the property manager actually knew who lived in the apartment, which could house up to 5 individuals.”

Page 29 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 19 Outside Counsel’s Response: A statement may be sworn either at the beginning or the end of an interview – in either case the witness is still stating under penalty of perjury that the information provided is accurate. The Mayor’s declaration, by contrast, is not sworn under penalty of perjury. Further, it is inaccurate to state that the property owner said that the lease needed to be updated because she felt there were additional residents. Comment 9: “The report mentions the investigator was unable to see cars parked at Berry Drive. Draft Report at 14. As the Mayor explained in her statement and as her landlord Amy Pedrioli conﬁrmed, Mr. Pedrioli has been recovering in the Berry Drive property following additional medical procedures, and therefore the Pedriolis’ moveout has been substantially delayed. The Mayor has keys to the home but is still moving her belongings in, as the Pedriolis are still moving out.” Outside Counsel’s Response: The Property Five owner’s declaration, as submitted by the Mayor, states that as of April 22, 2026, the Property Five owners had moved into their new house. They stated they are “happy to be in our new home, but some of our things still remain at Berry Drive.” The in-person observations by outside counsel and the investigator occurred on April 26, 2026, and April 28, 2026. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARD TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY The City of Fairﬁeld is a General Law City. General Law Cities, as opposed to Charter Cities, are required to follow State statues, and may not adopt ordinances that are in conﬂict with the provisions of State law. Therefore, State law regarding the residency requirements of City elected oHicials, including the Mayor and City Councilmembers, must be followed, along with any Municipal ordinances that are not in conﬂict with State law. The City’s Municipal Code provides that Members of the City Council shall be elected “by District” as deﬁned in California Government Code Section 34871. It also states that the Mayor shall be elected by a city-wide election of eligible voters residing in the City of Fairﬁeld. Further, it states that “(a) person shall not be eligible to be elected to be a Member of the City Council unless he or she is otherwise qualiﬁed as required by law, resides in the geographical area making up the district from which he or she is nominated to be elected and is a registered voter of the City of Fairﬁeld at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate.” (Municipal Code Section 2A.03.)

Page 30 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 20 Government Code Section 34871 provides that “(t)he term “by districts” shall mean election of members of the legislative body by voters of the district alone. “Geographical area making up the district” is deﬁned to mean the district, and in the case of elections from districts shall mean the entire city except with respect to the residence requirements imposed by Government Code Section 34882. Section 34882 states that “(a) person is not eligible to hold oHice as a member of a municipal legislative body unless he or she is otherwise qualiﬁed, resides in the district and both resided in the geographical area making up the district from which he or she is elected and was a registered voter of the city at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate.” Residency is also referred to in Government Code Section 36502. This Section, which identiﬁes when a vacancy occurs in a local elected City oHice, provides that a person is not eligible to hold oHice as councilmember unless she is at the time of assuming the oHice an elector of the city, and was a registered voter of the city at the time nomination papers were issued to the candidate. It also states that “(i)f, during his or her term of oHice, he or she moves his or her place of residence outside of the city limits or ceases to be an elector of the city, his or her oHice shall immediately become vacant.” The Government Code provides certain “rules” for residency, as follows: (a) It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he or she returns in seasons of repose. (b) There can only be one residence. (c) A residence cannot be lost until another is gained. (d) The residence of the parent with whom an unmarried minor child maintains his or her place of abode is the residence of such unmarried minor child. (e) The residence of an unmarried minor who has a parent living cannot be changed by his or her own act. (f) The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. (g) A married person shall have the right to retain his or her legal residence in the State of California notwithstanding the legal residence or domicile of his or her spouse. (Government Code Section 244.)

Page 31 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 21 Residency is further deﬁned for voter registration purposes under Elections Code Section 349, which states that: “a) “Residence” for voting purposes means a person's domicile. (b) The domicile of a person is that place in which his or her habitation is ﬁxed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only one domicile.” (c) The residence of a person is that place in which the person's habitation is ﬁxed for some period of time, but wherein he or she does not have the intention of remaining. At a given time, a person may have more than one residence. (Elections Code Section 349.) Both sections require the union of act and intent to determine residence. California courts and the Attorney General’s oHice have applied this basic principle when considering the residence of public oHicials. For example, courts have held that “[d]espite the fact that the terms residence and domicile are often used synonymously, residence is not a synonym for domicile, and its meaning in particular statutes is subject to diHering construction, depending on the context and purpose of the statute in which it is used. (Kirk v. Board of Regents (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 430, 434-435.) In Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc., 206 Cal. 515, 520, the Court ruled that “The question of residence is largely dependent upon the intent of the person whose residence is the subject of inquiry.” Similarly, in Chambers v. Hathaway, (1921) 187 Cal. 104, 105, the Court found that “Where a person has two dwellings in diHerent places and resides a part of his time in one place and a part of the time in another alternatively, the question which of the two places is his legal residence is almost altogether a question of his intent. If a party has two residences, that will be esteemed his domicile which he himself selects or deems to be his home, or which appears to be the center of his aHairs, or where he votes or exercises the rights and duties of a citizen. " In interpreting the term “residency” found in Government Code Section 244, the California State Supreme Court has ruled that the term "residence" as used in section 244 means "legal residence" or "domicile. " (Walters v. Weed (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1, 7; Smith v. Smith (1955) 45 Cal.2d 235, 239; see also Fenton v. Board of Directors (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d

Page 32 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 22 1107, 1113.) The test for determining a person's domicile is physical presence coupled with an intention to make that place his or her permanent home. (Fenton v. Board of Directors, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at 116.) A domicile, once acquired, continues until it is shown that a new domicile has been acquired. (DiMiglio v. Machore (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268.) The Attorney General’s oHice has opined on this issue as well. In 72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 8, (1989), the Attorney General’s oHice stated that: " . . . While the question of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact, many factors enter into the equation, including where an individual is registered to vote and his or her address for mail, where tax returns are ﬁled, where an automobile is registered, and where a homeowner's exemption or renter's credit is taken. However, the critical element is that of intent. While declarations of intent are signiﬁcant, they are not determinative. The acts must be examined as well. " (Id., at p. 14.) In 2018, the Attorney General denied a quo warranto action against a Costa Mesa City Councilmember. 101 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 42 (2018). There the Councilmember had moved out of Costa Mesa to his in-laws’ home in Newport Beach for a few months. The Councilmember stated he never intended to give up his domicile in Costa Mesa. He actively looked for new rental housing in Costa Mesa and ultimately leased a Costa Mesa apartment. The Attorney General concluded that “temporarily staying with relatives for a few months while making efforts to secure permanent housing” was not sufficient to have changed the official’s domicile. Id. The Attorney General also explained there was “no evidence he intended to remain in Newport Beach any longer than it took to acquire a new Costa Mesa domicile.” Id. In 1989, the Attorney General denied a quo warranto application submitted against a Lancaster City Councilmember. 72 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 63, 63 (1989). In that case, the official moved his family and his furniture in February 1988 to a home he purchased outside of the jurisdiction in Palmdale. The next month, he rented an apartment in Lancaster and publicly stated that he intended to maintain “dual residences.” The official was a sales representative for the Palmdale development; he purchased the Palmdale house solely as an investment and moved there to be present while improvements were being made. He moved a portion of his possessions into the Lancaster apartment, which he shared with his daughter, before moving temporarily to the Palmdale house. His “voting

Page 33 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 23 residency” remained in Lancaster during this period, though his car registration and his wife’s voter registration were briefly switched to the Palmdale house. Id. at 64, 71. Finally, in December 1988, while the Attorney General was considering the quo warranto request, the official stated he had sold the Palmdale house and moved into a newly purchased Lancaster home, ending his dual residency. The Attorney General concluded that these facts amounted to “very strong direct evidence” of his intent to keep his domicile in Lancaster. Id. at 71. The Attorney General also stated suing the official would not be in the public interest, and the the official’s sale of the Palmdale property and his “complete return” to Lancaster made a successful civil prosecution “extremely doubtful,” as it effectively rendered the issue moot. Id. In short, the determination of residency is a very fact speciﬁc question. It must be undertaken with an eye towards determining the public oHicial’s intent, when matched with the factual scenario presented. Relevant factors in other cases that have either been pursued criminally or civilly, have included: voter registration; address for mail; where tax returns are ﬁled; where an automobile is registered; where children go to school; where the public oHicial spends their time; whether a residency outside the jurisdiction in temporary and where a homeowner's exemption or renter's credit is taken. Again, however , this is not an exhaustive list, and other facts may help to determine intent. SUMMARY OF KEY EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION The Council should make a full assessment of the evidence in making its determination. The following summary of key evidence points is provided as a tool for the Council as an overview of the evidence gathered for this Report. Mayor’s Intent • The Mayor has clearly stated her intent to remain a resident of the City of Fairﬁeld on numerous occasions. • The Mayor has stated that she is a lifelong resident of the City of Fairﬁeld and her intent to continue as a lifelong resident of the City. • The Mayor left her Property One home in response to her negative economic circumstances. She intended to buy another property in the City of Fairﬁeld but was unable to qualify for a home purchase due to her low income. This required her to seek to live with friends and relatives so she could remain a resident of the City.

Page 34 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 24 Residence at Property One • The Mayor has stated she lived at Property One when she ran for the oHice of Mayor in 2022 and resided at that residence through March 2025. • The Mayor provided sworn witness statements in support of her position that she resided at Property One through the relevant period, and this evidence was corroborated by the independent witnesses interviewed under penalty of perjury by the investigator. • The Mayor provided a copy of her driver’s license, which reﬂected an address at Property One. Residence at Property Four (Houseguest with Friend) • The Mayor provided a declaration that she lived at Property Four from March 2025 through June 2025. • The Mayor provided a declaration from a corroborating witness that she lived at Property Four from March 2025 through June 2025. • The Mayor did not disclose that she resided at Property Four during the initial memorandum process but only disclosed it near the end of this investigation. Residence at Property Three (Apartment with Daughter) • The Mayor provided a declaration that she stayed in a guest bedroom at the apartment from June 2025 through April 9, 2025. • The Mayor was registered to vote at Property Three and allowed outside counsel to verify that fact with the County Registrar. • The Mayor notiﬁed the City that she was residing at Property Three and received City mail there. • The Mayor listed Property Two as a business property on her Form 700 and on her taxes, which would be accurate if she resided at Property Three and used Property Two for business purposes. • The Mayor would not permit a site visit by outside counsel and investigator at the apartment. • The Mayor stated that only she, her daughter and son-in-law resided at the apartment. This was contradicted by the on-site apartment manager, who stated that the male resident’s mother lived in one of the bedrooms and the other two tenants lived in the other bedroom.

Page 35 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 25 • The Mayor’s statement of residency at the apartment was contradicted by the apartment manager, who stated that she had never seen the Mayor there, was never notiﬁed the Mayor was staying there, and did not have the Mayor’s vehicle registered there. • The on-site manager stated that she could not get the tenants to sign a new lease, where they would have had to disclose all occupants and their vehicles. • In person, unannounced early-morning observations of the property on two occasions by the outside counsel and investigator found the Mayor’s vehicle on the site of Property Two (Suisun Valley) both times and, on the ﬁrst occasion found the Mayor herself present at Property Two. • The Mayor told outside counsel and the investigator not to enter the property again during the ﬁrst visit. • The Mayor did not arrange interviews with corroborating witnesses or other tenants. • The Mayor did not provide outside counsel with dates she had not stayed at the apartment. • The Mayor did not provide outside counsel with the requested information regarding her vehicles. Residence at Property Five • The Mayor provided a copy of a lease for rental of the property, albeit without unredacted signatures as requested by outside counsel. • The Mayor provided a copy of the property insurance she purchased for the property. • The Mayor provided a copy of a request for commencement of garbage service at Property Five, although the request did not list a speciﬁc address, but was consistent with the time the Mayor stated she moved into the property. • The Mayor provided a declaration that stated that Property Five is her residence as of April 9, 2026. • The Mayor did not mention the January 2026 lease she signed in her initial statement to outside counsel. The lease was only mentioned on April 23, 2026, weeks after the investigation had begun. • In-person unannounced early morning observation of the property on two occasions found the Mayor’s vehicle parked at Property Two, not Property Five. • The Mayor initially agreed to, then declined an in-person site visit, expressing privacy concerns and being considerate of her landlord.

Page 36 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 26 • The Mayor did not provide a copy of a processed rent check, instead stating that the landlord was holding it until the landlord completely moved out of the house. Other Evidence • The Mayor stated in her declaration that she participated in an interview with outside counsel. This is inaccurate as she has only submitted written information to outside counsel despite outside counsel’s request for an in-person, recorded interview conducted under penalty of perjury. • The Mayor has expressed that she is suHering from ﬁnancial diHiculties which prevented her from purchasing or leasing a new home in Fairﬁeld, until her contention she was able to enter into a lease to rent her friend’s property at Property Five. OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL The City Council must consider the evidence gathered and presented in the Investigative Report and determine if there is suHicient evidence to support a ﬁnding that the Mayor is or is not a resident of the City of Fairﬁeld under the applicable law. The investigation revealed evidence that is subject to interpretation and must be weighed by the decision-making body, the City Council. The ultimate decision of how to proceed lies with the City Council. Therefore, the City has the following options available to it: 1. Close the matter. The Council may deem the outside counsel’s Investigative Report suHicient to resolve the issue and take no further action. 2. Direct further investigation of the issue by outside counsel or another party to gather additional relevant information. The City has the authority to investigate the residency of one of its members and take action consistent with the factual ﬁndings. 3. Seek a quo warranto action from the Attorney General. As described at the January 20, 2026, closed session meeting, the Council has the authority to vote to request the Attorney General give the City the ability to ﬁle a civil lawsuit to challenge Mayor Moy’s residency status and eligibility for oHice. The Council must determine if the evidence gathered is suHicient to seek the Attorney General’s review of a potential quo warranto claim.

Page 37 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 27 4. Declare a vacancy in the Mayor’s elected oHice. Government Code Section 36502 states that, if, during her term of oHice, a public oHicial moves her place of residence outside of the city limits or ceases to be an elector of the city, her oHice shall immediately become vacant. The City Council could vote to declare a vacancy and could then ﬁll the vacant seat with a special election or appointment. There is some legal question as to whether this can be used to remove a public oHicial where the residency issue occurs during the public oHicial’s term (rather than at the time of nomination) (See 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 21.). The question is whether there is suHicient evidence to warrant a ﬁnding of vacancy in the oHice of the Mayor. If the Council pursues this action, it may consider holding a public hearing on the issue. However, the issue could be discussed and decided in a closed session. GUIDANCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE Consideration of the potential removal from oHice of a public oHicial is a serious topic that should be handled with care. The California Supreme Court has recognized this. In Carter v. Com. on Qualiﬁcations etc., (1939) 14 Cal.2d 179, 182, the court held that: “[T]he right to hold public oHice, either by election or appointment, is one of the valuable rights of citizenship . . . The exercise of this right should not be declared prohibited or curtailed except by plain provisions of law. Ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of eligibility to oHice. . . . " Here the Council is presented with evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, which the Council must weigh, make a determination as to its meaning and decide upon a course of action. The Council, in making its determination of the evidence and its implications, may consider the guidance provided by the State’s Judicial Council in its’ Civil Jury Instructions. These Instructions are used in California civil trials to guide civil jurors on how to approach the evaluation of evidence. Several may be considered by the Council, as follows: Direct and Indirect Evidence -Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone’s opinion. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testiﬁes she saw a jet plane ﬂying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane ﬂew across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a

Page 38 of 142 ends

Attorney/Client Privileged Information, Exempt from Public Disclosure Under the California Public Records Act, Closed Session Materials – Do Not Disseminate 28 witness testiﬁes that he saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial evidence. ” In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane ﬂew across the sky. As far as the law is concerned, it makes no diHerence whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves. CACI No. 202. Party Having Power to Produce Better Evidence - You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence. CACI No. 203. Willful Suppression of Evidence - You may consider whether one party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence. If you decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party. Failure to Explain or Deny Evidence - If a party failed to explain or deny evidence against her when she could reasonably be expected to have done so based on what she knew, you may consider her failure to explain or deny in evaluating that evidence. It is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of the failure to explain or deny evidence against the party. CACI No. 205. CONCLUSION Outside counsel submits this Report to the City Council for review and consideration. Outside counsel used the limited tools available to him to conduct an investigation that required the voluntary submission of evidence and testimony from witnesses. Outside counsel did not have the power to compel production of evidence or testimony. The evidence that was gathered, as contained in the Report, is subject to interpretation and must be weighed as to which pieces of evidence should be given more value than others. Since the City Council ultimately must decide on a course of action, how the Council weighs the evidence is most relevant to the decision-making process.

Page 39 of 142 ends

Page 40 of 142 ends

Page 41 of 142 ends

Page 42 of 142 ends

Page 43 of 142 ends

Page 44 of 142 ends

Page 45 of 142 ends

Page 46 of 142 ends

Page 47 of 142 ends

Page 48 of 142 ends

Page 49 of 142 ends

Page 50 of 142 ends

Page 51 of 142 ends

Page 52 of 142 ends

Page 53 of 142 ends

Page 54 of 142 ends

Page 55 of 142 ends

Page 56 of 142 ends

Page 57 of 142 ends

Page 58 of 142 ends

Page 59 of 142 ends

Page 60 of 142 ends

Page 61 of 142 ends

Page 62 of 142 ends

Page 63 of 142 ends

Page 64 of 142 ends

Page 65 of 142 ends

Page 66 of 142 ends

Page 67 of 142 ends

Page 68 of 142 ends

Page 69 of 142 ends

Page 70 of 142 ends

Page 71 of 142 ends

Page 72 of 142 ends

Page 73 of 142 ends

Page 74 of 142 ends

Page 75 of 142 ends

Page 76 of 142 ends

Page 77 of 142 ends

Page 78 of 142 ends

Page 79 of 142 ends

Page 80 of 142 ends

Page 81 of 142 ends

Page 82 of 142 ends

Page 83 of 142 ends

Page 84 of 142 ends

Page 85 of 142 ends

Page 86 of 142 ends

Page 87 of 142 ends

Page 88 of 142 ends

Page 89 of 142 ends

Page 90 of 142 ends

Page 91 of 142 ends

Page 92 of 142 ends

Page 93 of 142 ends

Page 94 of 142 ends

Page 95 of 142 ends

Page 96 of 142 ends

Page 97 of 142 ends

Page 98 of 142 ends

Page 99 of 142 ends

Page 100 of 142 ends

Page 101 of 142 ends

Page 102 of 142 ends

Page 103 of 142 ends

Page 104 of 142 ends

Page 105 of 142 ends

Page 106 of 142 ends

Page 107 of 142 ends

Page 108 of 142 ends

Page 109 of 142 ends

Page 110 of 142 ends

Page 111 of 142 ends

Page 112 of 142 ends

Page 113 of 142 ends

Page 114 of 142 ends

Page 115 of 142 ends

Page 116 of 142 ends

Page 117 of 142 ends

Page 118 of 142 ends

Page 119 of 142 ends

Page 120 of 142 ends

Page 121 of 142 ends

Page 122 of 142 ends

Page 123 of 142 ends

Page 124 of 142 ends

Page 125 of 142 ends

Page 126 of 142 ends

Page 127 of 142 ends

Page 128 of 142 ends

Page 129 of 142 ends

Page 130 of 142 ends

Page 131 of 142 ends

Page 132 of 142 ends

Page 133 of 142 ends

Page 134 of 142 ends

Page 135 of 142 ends

Page 136 of 142 ends

Page 137 of 142 ends

Page 138 of 142 ends

Page 139 of 142 ends

Page 140 of 142 ends

Agenda Item No: D.2

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 9, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: Request for Reimbursement by Mayor Moy for Legal Fees Related to Quo Warranto Process

Discussion and Direction on Mayor Moy’s Request for Reimbursement of Her Legal Fees Related to the Quo Warranto Process

Funding Source: General Fund

Contact: David Gassaway, (707) 428-7400

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Mayor Catherine “Cat” Moy has requested City Council consider reimbursing her for the costs of obtaining legal counsel in defense of her residency status related to the quo warranto investigation.

DISCUSSION
In response to the investigation into Mayor Moy’s residency status conducted by outside legal counsel, Mr. Gary Winuk, Mayor Moy requested the council to consider reimbursing her for legal costs incurred. Mayor Moy retained the law firm Olson Remcho LLP to represent her in the investigation into her residency by Mr. Winuk. Mayor Moy incurred costs personally for retaining her lawyers and their subsequent work on her behalf. She has not confirmed an estimated cost for legal services.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Unknown

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A

Page 141 of 142 ends

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council has authority to take any action they deem appropriate in this request.

COORDINATED WITH
N/A

STAFF CONTACT
David Gassaway, City Manager
(707) 428-7400
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
N/A

Page 142 of 142 ends

Fairfield City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Fairfield City Council
June 9, 2026