Moapa Valley Progress Newspaper

Home

News

Sports

Opinion

Upcoming Events

	MV Television District Hears Opposition To Assessment

	By Vernon Robison Moapa Valley Progress Submitted Apr. 9, 2008 The Moapa Valley Television District (MVTVD) held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 1. The hearing allowed for public input on an annual property tax assessment of $24 that the MVTVD proposes to place on all improved residential properties in the district. About 85 people attended the hearing. The most vocal participants were opposed to the assessment. MVTVD Board Chairman, Daniel Pray began by a brief overview of the district and the current effort. Pray explained that the district was established in 1959 under Nevada Revised Statute 318. The district is governed by a duly elected board and was established for the purpose of providing television signals to the Moapa, Logandale and Overton communities, Pray said. In 2002, the district received notice from the FCC that all analog primary broadcast would be converted to digital signals by February 2009. But this posed a big problem. MVTVD equipment is over 25 years old and is not able to receive digital signals. The federal mandate threatened to put the MVTVD permanently out of service by next February. Under the district’s current circumstances a digital upgrade would be impossible. Upgrading the equipment so that the MVTVD can receive the primary signals and retransmit them in digital will cost over $250,000; about $50,000 over the next five years. The district currently has no source of revenue other than voluntary contributions from community members which have, in the past, added up to only about $6,000 per year. “The big question then for us was: How do we comply to this regulation and continue providing what we are elected to provide?” Pray said. Pray explained that the NRS allowed the MVTVD to assess a service charge to property owners through the county tax rolls. Thus, the board was proposing to make a $24 annual assessment to pay for the necessary equipment upgrades. This idea was not popular among most of the people in attendance at the hearing. Pray spent the next two hours fielding questions about the proposed tax assessment. The conversation quickly became heated and emotionally charged. Many in attendance made the point that they already subscribed to satellite television service and didn’t need the MVTVD service. “Why do we need the TV district?” one member of the audience asked. Pray explained that free-to-air television service in larger community is provided by the commercial stations. These signals are often not available in rural areas because the low number of viewers would not justify the cost of the costly equipment. The TV district was established to ensure that service is available to the local area, Pray said. “We have gone to the General Managers of all of the commercial stations in Las Vegas to ask them to help us keep their signal going here,” Pray said. “We even asked if they would let us have some of their old equipment. But we were turned down by all of them.” The question was asked if it was possible for those who subscribe to satellite TV could opt out of the assessment. Pray responded that the MVTVD was not allowed to offer a subscription service. They must provide free-to-air signals to everyone, thus the proposed assessment would be made equally to each residence. “But what if we don’t want the service?” asked one resident. “Why can’t we opt out of the charge?” “It is really the same reason as you can’t opt out of taxes to fund the library district; even if you don’t use the library,” Pray said. “The library is not a necessity but it provides a common good. Many never use it but you still pay a tax for it.” Pray did say that, in other similar TV districts, residents without televisions in their homes could come individually before the district board and ask to be excluded from the assessment. In other districts these requests were considered on a case-by-case basis, Pray said. One person in the audience, observing that most people in the room were opposed to the assessment, asked where the board was getting its mandate to proceed. Pray responded that when the MVTVD began the assessment process, the Board of County Commissioners asked the same question. The Commissioners asked the two Town Boards to give a recommendation whether the MVTVD was still needed or whether it should be disbanded, Pray said. “We were asked to bring a presentation to the two Town Boards explaining just what we had planned,” Pray said. “This was really a turning point on whether the district would be kept or not.” Pray said that the vote was unanimous in both town boards to recommend that the district be allowed to continue. “Judy Metz (Chairwoman of the Moapa Valley Town Board) said in that meeting that she had never received so many phone calls in favor of any issue than she had received about the TV district,” Pray said. Pray also cited a survey done by the district in 2006. In this survey, the district dialed every telephone number in the community and asked whether the household used the MVTVD services or not. Pray explained that about half of those who answered hung up the phone. Of those who completed the survey about 51% of them responded that they did use MVTVD services. This added up to a total of 291 people, Pray said. Many in the audience complained that this was not an adequate sample size to make a determination. But Pray said that the phone survey had been certified as a valid survey of the Moapa Valley population. “Well, we have about a hundred people here tonight,” said one person in attendance, “and most of us don’t want this. Doesn’t that carry any weight?” Some of those in attendance, however, were in favor of retaining the MVTVD services. “I think that for every person in this room that is opposed to this, there are probably 20 people out there that are in favor,” said one person. “The dissenters always come out to the meetings.” “For $2 a month it is the cheapest entertainment you can get anywhere,” said one woman. “For everyone here tonight there is at least two people in this community that are trailer-bound that can’t be here. They depend on this service because they can’t afford anything else. Who is speaking for them? I’m really disappointed in this conversation because I thought this community was about taking care of people.” “My entertainment is fishing,” responded another man. “I don’t get enough funding for that, other than what my wife gives me. None of you have given me funding for my entertainment. Why should I pay for yours?” “It isn’t really the money,” said another man. “If there are seniors here that need help, I think that the members of this community would gladly put in $24 a year to help out. But it is the word that you put in your notice: you are going to lien my home if it isn’t paid. That is the big problem for me!” Pray responded that the option of placing a lien on someone’s home is merely part and parcel to using the county tax rolls to collect the service fee. “We have to work within the laws and mechanisms that are there,” he said. “We can’t pick and choose.” Another concern voiced was whether the MVTVD Board members were competent and knowledgeable enough to deliver the digital signals being promised. “We’ve heard a lot of complaints about the poor quality of the existing service,” said one man. “How do we know that you are competent and that your five year plan is even viable?” Pray explained that, after the Town Boards had recommended to retain the MVTVD, the County Commissioners had required that an outside study of the TV District be done. An independent expert was called in to evaluate the district, make a determination if it was financially viable, and to engineer a microwave link between the MVTVD equipment and Las Vegas valley that would carry the digital signals. “That study was done and it provided case documentation that this is all possible here,” Pray said. “It even gave examples of other TV districts in the state that have done the same thing.” “But all of this is new equipment,” the man continued. “How do we know that you will be able to handle it appropriately.” “I had a part in designing the technology that we are speaking of,” said MVTVD Board Member, Dave Borcher. “We will be able to operate it.” Borcher works as an engineer for Lockheed Coporation. Many people at the meeting reiterated the feeling that this was just another example of ‘taxation without representation’. “I get the impression that, whatever we say here tonight, you’re just going to ram it down our throats anyway,” said one man in attendance. “There must be a way to stop this thing. How do we legally stop it?” Pray asked the TV district’s attorney, who was in attendance, to respond to this question. “My review has been that the MVTVD board has fully complied under the law with its ability to make an assessment,” he said. “They are doing what they are elected to do. The way to change this would be that, when the time comes for the next election, you run for office to serve on this board. Then you can make the changes that you want; whether it be to dissolve the district or whatever it may be.” Pray concluded by reviewing a portion of the NRS 318 in dealing with a TV District making an assessment. This states that “upon conclusion of the hearing the board may adopt, revise, change of modify any charge or overrule any and all objections and make its determination upon each charge”. “The federal government has mandated that we make these updates to digital,” Pray said. “How do we do this? It is through this assessment. The majority of those here today are not for it. But we have survey numbers as well as unanimous Town Advisory Board votes from both Moapa and Moapa Valley that support the district moving forward. This assessment is the only way we can go forward.” A public discussion of this MVTVD issue is on the agenda for tonight’s Moapa Valley Town Advisory Board Meeting (7:00 p.m. in the Overton Community Center). The MVTVD Board will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 10 in the Overton Community Center to hold the final vote on this issue.