Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Service Charges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves service‑charge changes for Morvai Southeast subdivision after no majority protest
Summary
After receiving one returned ballot and no oral testimony, the Board approved a change in benefit category and an associated Zone 3 service charge for the Morvai Southeast subdivision (102 single‑family lots), finding no majority protest under Proposition 218.
Get email alerts on the Service Charges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sacramento County Board on April 28 approved two related actions for the Morvai Southeast subdivision (Bradshaw area): (1) a change in benefit category for County Service Area No. 1, Zone 1 and (2) establishment of a Zone 3 service charge within County Service Area No. 10, Benefit Zone 3.
County engineering staff described the project as 102 single‑family residential lots with park and landscape lots, approved by final map on January 5, 2025. Staff said Proposition 218 notices and protest ballots were mailed to property owners on March 13, 2026. At the close of the public hearings the clerk reported one returned ballot (marked "yes") and no public speakers for either hearing. Because there was no majority protest the board proceeded to adopt the resolutions and direct the clerk to tabulate the ballots.
Staff cited current assessment figures and proposed increases on the record: the transcript states the existing parcel assessment was "$2.00 and 56 cents" for safety light only; staff later stated the annual service charge would "increase to $7580" (as read aloud in the presentation). For Item 62 staff described a proposed per‑lot annual charge in the transcript as "1 million 31 and 54 cents per single family residential lot" (102 lots) — the language presented on the record appears garbled and should be read as the staff figure that was included in the mailed Proposition 218 notices. The clerk reported the tabulation results and the board approved both items by vote (each passed 4‑0 with Supervisor Desmond absent).
The board’s action proceeds under Proposition 218 protest procedures; no property‑owner majority protest was recorded during the hearings.

