Bullhead City Council Work Session on Cellular Towers and Homelessness Code - September 3, 2024
Bullhead City Council Work Session on Cellular Towers and Homelessness Code - September 3, 2024
The Bullhead City Council held a special meeting/work session on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. All council members were present except Council Member Lazarga. The session covered two discussion items: improving cellular coverage in northern Bullhead City and updating city codes in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on homelessness. No legal action was taken.
Cellular Sites Discussion
City Manager Toby Cotter reported that the city has acquired new sites (Epcore assets) on the north side of town that could host cell towers. The city owns approximately 300 acres on the Bullhead City Parkway north of Laughlin Ranch Boulevard. Staff contacted Atlas Towers, which had previously expressed interest in building a tower in the Pegasus Ranch area (denied). Atlas Towers remains interested in the north side. Council members discussed service range, potential revenue from leasing city land, and the importance of co-locating multiple carriers on any tower built on city property. Council member Lettman asked about service range; Cotter noted it depends on carrier schematics. Council member Ring stressed the need for community input.
Public Comments on Cellular Sites
- Amora Compost (Tri‑State Wi‑Fi) expressed interest in a public‑private partnership to build towers, citing experience in tower engineering and the ability to accommodate multiple cell carriers and internet services.
- Harvey Pryor opposed direct city involvement in the communications business but supported leasing land. He cautioned against dedicating a tower to a single carrier and urged gathering more information before proceeding.
Homelessness Code Discussion
City Attorney Garnet Emery explained the legal history: the 9th Circuit’s Boise decision had limited enforcement of camping ordinances by requiring that enforcement could only occur if shelter beds were available and offered. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Oregon overruled that approach, holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cities from enforcing reasonable conduct‑based prohibitions regardless of housing status. Emery presented a draft ordinance based on Grants Pass that defines camping and campsites more broadly, but advised focusing on objective conduct rather than intent. City Manager Cotter emphasized that Bullhead City is not a sanctuary city and wants to avoid the homelessness problems seen in larger cities. He suggested prohibitions such as “no sleeping in a park unless you have rented the gazebo.” Council members discussed the need to differentiate between individuals who want help and those who choose a transient lifestyle. Chief of Police described the compassionate approach of offering services before enforcement and highlighted the new BACKUP unit that proactively follows up with homeless individuals and helps with property issues. Council member Ring noted the challenge of a revolving door and asked about shopping cart enforcement; Cotter replied that code enforcement retrieves stolen carts and the city has retrieved over 900 carts in the past 12 months.
Public Comments on Homelessness Code
- Harvey Pryor asked whether the new ordinance would affect vehicles/campers parked on city streets and desert areas. He was told that it could and that enforcement would be based on trespass letters from property owners. He urged a careful approach that does not penalize functioning homeless people with jobs.
Key Outcomes
- Cellular Sites: The council directed staff to proceed with a public survey to gauge community interest and feasibility, and to consider issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for potential cell tower development on city land. The council expressed preference for private‑sector solutions but is open to public‑private partnerships that allow co‑location of multiple carriers.
- Homelessness Code: The council directed the city attorney and manager to draft more restrictive ordinances based on the Grants Pass ruling, focusing on objective conduct prohibitions (e.g., sleeping in parks without a rental). Staff will study approaches used by the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and return with specific proposals in the near future. The council emphasized a compassionate approach that offers services but enforces rules against camping on public property.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon, everybody. This is Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024. It's 4 p.m. We're here for a special meeting and work session. Um calling this meeting in order. Could I get a roll call, please? All council members are present except for council member Lazarga. Uh council member ring, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. All right, we're gonna start with uh discussion regarding our cell phone sites, Toby. Thank you. Mayor Demico, Council members. Recently uh we had a workshop on the same matter. Uh staff is here to present an update on that, answer any other questions that you may have received or thoughts you may have had since that last workshop. As we presented before, the city has some new sites on the north side of town uh because of the acquisition of the Epcore assets, some cell some cell tower sites could be placed upon what are now water uh tank sites, if you will. Primarily we were looking at the north side of the community, not necessarily the whole community, although that could still be part of the discussion. Um council member uh county board member elect Leppman. This was something he had talked to me privately about and said, you know, there's some c complaints of folks who drop service on the parkway. And so we've been looking around at various sites. Now the city does own about 300 acres on the parkway that the city owns outright, just south of excuse me, just north of Law Found Ranch Boulevard, and we have the Epcore assets that we've acquired throughout the community. Johnny's gonna provide you with a little more insights and then we'll be happy to answer any questions that that you may have or that the public has. So I'll turn it over to Johnny for a brief uh discussion on what he's learned and talked about since our last meeting. Thank you, Mr. Carter, mayor counsel. So we did reach out to a company called Atlas Towers. They had previously uh submitted for a tower uh in the Pegasus Ranch area, and that was denied. But they do have lots of interest in the north side of town. I think they were very interested in the 300 acres the city owns just south of Laughlin Ranch Boulevard. I was not able to contact the uh engineer today to speak to him, but we looked at other towers throughout town. I picked three out three random towers because I think one of the questions we had was if a tower company builds these, is it dedicated to a single company? And the answer as far as I could find was no. Like for example, the tower on Wolfcourt has ATT Verizon Sprint and T-Mobile on that one tower. They've all made improvements within the Wolf Court on the very very south side of town. It's on the uh west, sorry, east side of the highway, kind of by uh cocktails. The tower on Desert Sky Boulevard, I think there's uh one of the churches there. They have T-Mobile Sprint and Verizon have all pulled permits in the last few years. And then the one at 1355 Raymar has ATT Sprint and T-Mobile. So it is very possible for these towers to co-locate with many different users. I think at least the ones I looked up, they're not owned by a cell phone tower company or cell company. It's owned by a company that owns a tower, and then they rent space to the cell companies. No, but we have had at least the Pegasus ranch um proposal was primarily driven by T Mobile at the time. Correct. I think they were that company was working for T Mobile, but again, I think they can look uh co-locate with other companies. And if you recall during that planning and zoning process, uh we have a very restrictive type process. They went through the process. It was first gonna be a clock tower looking uh development, and then it turned out to just a single monopole uh light sand and color to blend in, and the neighbors didn't like that either. So um the neighbors were objecting. Um the application didn't move forward. I think they withdrew and and then just never came back.
openpublica.com