A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board approves service‑charge changes for Morvai Southeast subdivision after no majority protest

April 28, 2026 | Sacramento County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board approves service‑charge changes for Morvai Southeast subdivision after no majority protest
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.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee