Residents and activists press council over District 1 residency of Councilmember Kozlowski

Several Folsom residents and a local activist group used public comment at the Jan. 28 Folsom City Council meeting to press allegations that Councilmember Mike Kozlowski does not live at the District 1 address he reported during his campaign.

The issue drew multiple speakers during the meeting’s public comment period, with Naomi Machado saying, “The allegation that Mike Kozlowski falsely declared himself a District 1 resident was first raised years ago,” and arguing the City Attorney’s Office had refused to investigate. Warren Heatley, identified himself as chairman of RebuildCalifornia.com, told the council he had sent a letter on Dec. 13 outlining the allegations and cited criminal statutes while urging the council or prosecutors to act, saying, “It’s a felony,” when referring to filing false documents under state law.

The claims prompted several other speakers to call for an inquiry or prosecutor review. Sarah Norberg, a Folsom resident, said the property in question is a house “under construction and a trailer on the property,” and that she believed living in a trailer could violate local ordinances. Scott Machalo urged the Sacramento District Attorney to investigate both Kozlowski and the City Attorney for an alleged conspiracy.

Councilmember Mike Kozlowski responded near the end of the public comment period, saying, “I took up residence at my current place of residence, which is in District 1 and have lived there continuously to this day. It's the most easily verifiable fact,” and adding that his adult children live elsewhere while “my wife lives with me.” Mayor Sarah Aquino’s prior reply to at least one correspondent was described in public remarks as saying she had “no reason to question him,” a characterization made by Heatley when recounting communications he said he had with the mayor and the city attorney.

Why it matters: The speakers said the residency question affects compliance with state requirements that elected officials reside in the district they represent and said it undermines public trust if left unaddressed.

The council did not take any formal action on the matter during the meeting. No council motion, referral to staff, or formal inquiry was recorded on the transcript for this agenda item. The transcript records multiple requests from residents that the District Attorney or other agencies investigate; those are requests from members of the public, not council directives.

What was cited: During public comment, Heatley named several state statutes and election-code provisions while urging investigation, including California Penal Code section 115 (filing false or forged instruments), Penal Code section 118 (perjury), and Elections Code sections 18304, 18203 and 18100, which relate to false statements in candidate materials and voter registration; those citations were made by a member of the public, not by city staff or the council.

Next steps and context: No staff report, referral, or formal vote on the residency allegations appears in the meeting record. Councilmember Kozlowski’s on-the-record statement at the meeting—quoted above—constitutes his response in the public meeting record. Additional investigative steps (for example by the City Attorney, county district attorney, or other agencies) were discussed by speakers but not initiated by the council during this session.