Public Record

Communications listed in reverse-chronological order . . .

March 18, 2021 

Collin Boyce
Chief Information Officer
City of Tucson
City Hall
255 W. Alameda
Tucson, AZ 85701

To City of Tucson City Council Members:
Mayor Regina Romero or 520-791-4201
Ward 1 Council Member Lane Santa-Cruz or 520-791-4040
Ward 2 Council Member Paul Cunningham or 520-791-4687
Ward 3 Council Member Karin Uhlich or 520-791-4711
Ward 4 Council Member Nikki Lee or 520-791-3199
Ward 5 Council Member Richard Fimbres or 520-791-4231
Ward 6 Council Member Steve Kozachik ward6@tucsonaz.gov520-791-4601

To City Manager, Michael Ortega  

Diana Alarcon
Pamela Lyons
City of Tucson City Clerk

Re: Setting Up a Call re: Why Wireline Broadband and Wireless Broadband are NOT Functionally Equivalent Services, Round 3

Dear Mr. Boyce et al.,

[City Clerk, will you please add this email/letter to the City of Tucson Public record for Feb 23, 2021 Study Session Agenda Item 6: “Insufficient Local Regulation of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in Residential Zones”? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this “agendized” item, which resulted in Council direction given to the City Manager to revise the current City of Tucson WTF Ordinance? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the City Council members for any future meetings, “agendized” items or deliberations on this revised City of Tucson WTF Ordinance. Thank you for doing so.]

Mr. Boyce, will you please evaluate this table carefully → and then please call me at ______________?

Your statement written on 3/18/2021, cited below, “the material [at] is outside of the scope of what the city is doing regarding wireless” is unfortunately, not true. How you choose to close the Digital Divide in Tucson could not be more in scope with what the City of Tucson is doing regarding wireless. Perhaps, I have not sufficiently explained why the critically important information we are placing in the City of Tucson public record indicates that the City of Tucson should not continue with its current plans to deploy Wireless-only internet connections from ill-advised (and potentially illegally constructed) Wireless Infrastructure in the City of Tucson public rights-of-way or on City-owned property.

The City of Tucson, must grapple with the facts:

  • From 2017–2021 City of Tucson staff has approved over 400 incomplete applications for so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs). These applications are substandard by national, state and even the City of Tucson standards because the applications do not specify which antennas and radios are being installed (no mfg. or model numbers are listed, which makes these applications unlike those from nearly every other City in Arizona or across the US). See example here →
  • Therefore, it seems that the City of Tucson illegally issued over 400 permits for wireless infrastructure that does not deliver actual public safety, is ruining the quiet enjoyment of streets and violates Tucsonan’s constitutionally-guaranteed rights to privacy.
  • These oversights by the City staff are serious and these so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) will need to be retrofitted to correct these obvious and very serious problems. The City of Tucson should cease and desist from similarly dangerous practices for your program on City-owned land.
  • Whether the Wireless infrastructure is privately owned (by Big Red, Big Blue or Big Pink) or City-owned is immaterial. The critical choice is Fiber Optics to the Premises (FTTP) vs. Wireless-only for broadband. FTTP is far superior (faster, more secure, more reliable and not hazardous), as illustrated in the City of Chattanooga, cited below, and in other US Cities → See | | | Re-lnventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks, published by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy
  • Despite recent media coverage at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Fierce Wireless, your plans are ill-considered because the plans would be creating the “land of no choice” in Tucson, creating conditions where Tucsonans’ would be significantly injured because City staff was negligent in performing their basic due diligence on this project. In addition, the City of Tucson lacks insurance to cover claims of injury, illness or death from the EFM/RF-EMR that transmits from this infrastructure at insufficiently locally-regulated power output levels. See


“Tucson has hundreds of miles of fiber connecting the city’s municipal buildings. But, unlike a city like Chattanooga, which operates one of the premier Fiber-to-the-Home networks in the nation allowing America’s first Gig City to provide free high-speed Internet access to 12,000 low-income students in Chattanooga throughout the ongoing pandemic, Tucson has not built a fully fiber-optic municipal broadband network . . . In a city with a population of about 530,000, an estimated 30 percent of city residents, or about 150,000 Tucsonans, don’t subscribe to wireline broadband,” Boyce said.

You typing the statement below, Mr. Boyce, does not make it true. In fact, your statement is the definition of arbitrary and capricious, i.e. devoid of reasoned decision-making.

If you consider the actual evidence that is already in — and, some that is inexplicably missing — from the City of Tucson public record, it is clear that you and other City staff are not doing sufficient due diligence in choosing Wireless broadband over Wired Broadband for closing the Digital Divide for those homes currently lacking a high-speed connection to the internet.

I have communicated this to the Mayor and all of the Council members. We are seeking reasonable service from the City staff to engage in a matter of importance. I have very good information to share with you. You can start here →

Will you please call me at _______________?

Thank you.

>>> Collin Boyce wrote on 3/18/2021 9:30 AM:

I have read through the material and this is outside of the scope of what the city is doing regarding wireless.

From: Collin Boyce [](
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:39 AM
To: ______________________
Cc: Diana Alarcon []<br(>, Sam Credio [](, Mayor Romero [](, Pamela Lyons [](

Subject: Setting Up a Call re: Why Wireline Broadband and Wireless Broadband are NOT Functionally Equivalent Services

Thank you. I am out of the office today and will look at the information when I am back.

Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 10:30:50 AM
To: Collin Boyce [](
Cc: Diana Alarcon [](; Sam Credio [](; Mayor Romero [](; Pamela Lyons [](

Subject: Setting Up a Call re: Why Wireline Broadband and Wireless Broadband are NOT Functionally Equivalent Services

Dear Mr. Boyce.

My plan is to definitely speak again for the rights of the residents of Tucson.

>>> Collin Boyce wrote on 3/12/2021 8:33 AM:

Sorry, not at this time. There was a lot of material that was provided, which needs to be thoughtfully reconciled with the business requirements.

If there is additional clarification that is required after reading the material, we will reach out to you. If we don’t speak again, please have a happy and safe weekend.

What is the point of reaching 0ut and providing your email at the budget town hall if it does not lead to engaging in discussion? We need additional clarification how the City of Tucson will retrofit the first wave of 400-500 so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) — those that have already been installed throughout Tucson, with its initial push into the lower income neighborhoods — to address the actual requirements.

I believe the City of Tucson will have to fully appreciate the difference between requirements and goals.

  • Requirements: necessity; something essential to the existence or occurrence of something else
  • Goals: the ends toward which effort is directed

The City of Tucson and its business partners (including but not limited to AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon) may have a matrix of business goals, but the only requirement is for the provisions of telecommunications service (sufficient wireless coverage for calls/texts). Everything else is, merely, a business goal.

There are other requirements with which the City must grapple, including not stealing Tucson residents’ inalienable rights to privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their streets and homes (which is what is happening right now). See the evidence at these web pages:


Placing, constructing and OPERATING so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) at excessive Effective Radiated Power output — in the Public Rights-of-Way — is unjust and unconstitutional. Doing so is a TAKING of personal property values, without just compensation, and the resulting 24/7 surveillance VIOLATES Tucson’s residents’ rights to privacy.

Those requirements must be balanced against the business goals of the City and its partners. That balancing effort will require engaged conversation.

I will look forward to your call to 707-981-5522.

Thank you.

Arizona State Constitution, Article 2 — Declaration of Rights

  • Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
  • Section 3. Supreme law of the land; authority to exercise sovereign authority against federal action; use of government personnel and financial resources
    • A. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land to which all government, state and federal, is subject.
    • B. To protect the people’s freedom and to preserve the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, this state may exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the constitution . . .
    • C. If the people or their representatives exercise their authority pursuant to this section, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with the designated federal action or program.
  • Section 8. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
  • Section 17. Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches, on or across the lands of others for mining, agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made, paid into court for the owner, secured by bond as may be fixed by the court, or paid into the state treasury for the owner on such terms and conditions as the legislature may provide, and no right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal, until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law . . .
  • Section 32. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
  • Section 33. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

March 10, 2021​

Samuel Credio, PE, MBA
Project Manager
City Manager’s Office
City of Tucson
City Hall, 10th Floor
255 W. Alameda
Tucson, AZ 85701

To City of Tucson City Clerk, Mayor and City Council Members


Michael Ortega
Diana Alarcon
Roi Lusk
Timothy Thomure
Cindy Turner
Jessie Sanders
Yolanda Lozano

​Dear Mr. Credio et al.,

[City Clerk, will you please add this email/letter to the City of Tucson Public record for Feb 23, 2021 Study Session Agenda Item 6: “Insufficient Local Regulation of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in Residential Zones”? Will you please also ensure that this email/letter gets printed and placed into the paper file for this “agendized” item, which resulted in Council direction given to the City Manager to revise the current City of Tucson WTF Ordinance? We are requesting that this email/letter and all communications and other substantial written evidence that we place in the Public Record be added to the agenda packet that will be distributed to the City Council members for any future meetings, “agendized” items or deliberations on this revised City of Tucson WTF Ordinance. Thank you for doing so.]

Thank you so much for agreeing to a 60-minute meeting (via MS Teams) with the following people on Monday, March 15, 2021, from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, local time.

A. From the City of Tucson

  1. Samuel Credio, City Manager’s staff
  2. Roi Lusk, City Attorney’s staff
  3. Cindy Turner, City Attorney’s staff
  4. Timothy Thomure, Director of Water
  5. Jessie Sanders, Dept. of Transportation Staff

B. From We, the People of Tucson (and Pima County), organized as Wire Tucson (

  1. Robin Motzer, Pima County resident, Habitat Restoration Advocate, Artist, Poet, Writer
  2. Russell Witte, PhD, Tucson resident, Medical School Professor at University of Arizona Medical School and business owner
  3. Lisa Smith, PhD, Tucson resident Founder & Certified EMF Expert of EMF Wellness (
  4. Karen Roellig, Pima County resident, Commercial real estate broker
  5. Bradford Trojan, Tucson resident, Somatic Trauma Therapist, Actor & Musician
  6. Wendy Burkhard, Pima County resident, Business Owner
  7. Heidi Miller, Tucson resident, RF-EMR public safety advocate
  8. Melody Madden, Pima County resident, Business Owner

​We appreciate that the City of Tucson is now giving the unnecessary building of the over-powered 4G/5G densification grid a higher priority than it has in the past three or so years. Since this densification push is now invading the residential neighborhoods in full force, the strength and volume of a well-justified resident-push back is building among the residents of Tucson.

We have been in touch with the many neighborhood associations and have hosted about half a dozen Neighborhood Zoom video conferences, attracting as many as 75-100 participants (and probably more who wished to attend, but our Zoom capacity is 100). We will be discussing the scheduled Mar 15 meeting on our next Zoom video conference and additional Tucson residents may be interested in attending the scheduled meeting via MS Teams on Mar 15.

The evidence we see of the City taking this more seriously, as they should, is the following:   

  • On February 22, 2021, the Mayor wrote a letter to the State of AZ, about the need to repeal or significantly revise Arizona HB.2365, to restore rightful local control over most aspects of managing their own public rights-of-way infrastructure. Thank you, Mayor Romero for your support.
  • On February 23, 2021, Council members Kozachik and Cunningham spoke with clarity and conviction on agenda item number 6 of the afternoon study session, prior to the vote to authorize the City Manager to further revise and update the City of Tucson’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) Ordinance to encourage collocation of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) instead of the building of new, stand-alone monopole sWTFS, as has been happening all over. Thank you, Council members Kozachik and Cunningham for requesting this item be included in the agenda.
  • On Mar 9, 2021, the Council members were welcoming and attentive to this important public comment that started out with “I speak for the Trees and Nature . . .” (view here →

We also appreciate that the City of Tucson decided to move you, Mr. Credio, over from the Dept. of Transportation to assist the City Manager as the point person on managing this important infrastructure effort — one that needs much more creative, out-of-the-box thinking and critical analysis/decision-making to properly balance the needs of Tucson residents — the “natural persons” who are also Tucson’s constituents, taxpayers and voters — with those of the “artificial persons”, the multi-billion dollar Wireless Cos. and their agents.

We have a great team of local residents who have done their homework and are looking forward to presenting our proposal to the City on Mar 15. We hope to engage in an open and transparent process with the City staff to work together to respectfully consider all valid points (discarding any propaganda from either side of the issue) and arriving a good solutions that strengthen the community and the finances of City and County in which we live.

We are fine meeting in person (and frankly would prefer that) whenever that becomes feasible. We are willing to follow all safety protocols that preserves our rights as Tucson and Arizona residents. Although we much prefer Zoom to Teams, we find Zoom easier, as recognized by even the City when it organized a recent webinar. See

  • The last two City Council meeting had several well-documented problems with the MS Teams software.
  • The public was unable to join as members or respond to the mayor.
  • The incoming coming calls lagged during the live stream by 20 or more seconds.

​These problems have been reported to the city clerk and IT. We have recommended that future public meetings move to Zoom software, like the vast majority of other public meetings held by cities across the country.

For our meeting on Monday, we would like to establish the following up-front:

  • Will the City add these members of the public as “team members” for the meeting, giving us the ability to show our faces and present visuals or slides from our computers?
  • Can we coordinate with the MS Teams administrator to log in 15 minutes before the meeting so we can maximize our productive time during the meeting?
  • Will you please confirm that this is the plan for our Mon meeting?
  • Is there a Microsoft Teams Support “Czar” within the City of Tucson IT Dept. who we can call, if we encounter any difficulties? What is the contact info for that person?
  • For the meeting, we request the first 20 – 30 minutes to present the “People’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) Ordinance” (an ordinance that complies with both Federal and State Telecom Law). We foresee the remaining time for  team’s input, discussion, questions, and the scheduling of our next meeting with the same staff. Is that workable? Please confirm.

​We, the people of Tucson, must be stakeholders in this WTF Ordinance process as our public safety, privacy, and property values are firmly on the line. We will provide substantial written evidence for your review no later than end of day Thursday, March 11 in time for staff to review before our Monday meeting.

We will also need to address the current rampant practice by the Wireless Cos and the City of Tucson of “hiding the pickle” regarding exactly which antennas and radios have being installed and are currently operating on the 300+ sWTFs that are already operating throughout Tucson. The lack of relevant information is explained here →

This means the City of Tucson has been issuing permits for three years based on incomplete applications, which is a violation of local Tucson Municipal code. We will need an immediate plan to correct these obvious procedural errors just to accurately understand the severity of the problem the City of Tucson has created for itself and its residents over the last three years. We are less interested in blame than in timely solutions to correct these errors.

Thank you, Mr. Credio for your prompt reply to this email.


​Robin Motzer
Russell Witte
Bradford Trojan
Wendy Burkhard
Lisa Smith
Heidi Miller
Melody Madden


From: Heidi Miller
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 7:23 PM
To: Diana Alarcon <>; Steve Kozachik <>;
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Citations 

Dear Councilman Kozachik, 
Thank you for hosting tonight’s roundtable. 

As a matter of public record, please forward to me the plain language of relevant citations behind your answers to questions this evening from the current state and federal laws please, and other questions not asked, if prepared. I have not been in receipt of any such correspondence and I do not have them.

I am not associated with Peter Howell, there are many who have heard of the Tucsonans WTF Ordinance. 

Please also share which law(s) from California have been pressed upon you by certain residents.
I am not aware of any and there are none contained in the TWTFO. 

Thank you, 
& Please reconsider meeting with residents on this topic.

Val Romero and Andres Portela have agreed to be present on Sunday evening. 
Your position will be shared in absentia. 
-Heidi Miller

Laplace’s principle:
“the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its

(Gillispie et al., 1999)


Jul 20, 2021, 7:35 PM
From: Steve Kozachik
To: Heidi Miller

While the state has taken our voice out of certain elements of the 5G process, it’s a federal law that prohibits us from regulating based on RF. Here’s the citation from FCC rules: 

(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. 

47 U.S.C.A. § 332 (West) 

Pursuant to federal case law, this prohibition applies to the regulation of operations of personal wireless facilities as well.  

The way that ties into the Arizona state prohibitions is that we cannot deny a permit unless the proposed site fails to comply with our local codes. Since the FCC says we cannot regulate based on RF emissions, we can’t place that into our local code.  

From: Steve Kozachik <>
Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Round Table

HB2365 – limits on denial are zoning code only. We cannot deny based on health.Here’s a link to the state statute.

HB 2365 – Arizona State Legislaturehb 2365 – 3 – 1 district, electric membership corporation or rural electric cooperative 2 and that is designed to carry, or used in whole or in part for the
 WT: Councilman Kozachik is still citing a version of a bill, one that only governs the county -not the City- which was never passed into law. He has been corrected many times previously.