Apopka DRC discusses requiring developers to install conduit for future city fiber

Apopka’s Development Review Committee discussed June 11 whether to require developers to install conduit during construction so the city can build a dedicated fiber network for public-safety systems and other infrastructure.

Committee members and staff said the requirement could lower future costs, speed deployment of cameras and traffic signal connectivity, and prevent costly retrofits. “We’re missing a lot of opportunity, and we’re already millions and millions of dollars behind to try to retrofit some of those areas of the city,” Police representative Mike McKinley said.

The discussion centered on a practical first step: require a dedicated conduit (empty tubing and mapped conduit boxes) to be placed while ground is open, with the city retaining ownership of that conduit. “It’s conduit box, conduit box, we map it. We need those for future growth,” Deputy Quinn Henry said, arguing the approach is cheaper than retrofitting. Vladimir Simonovsky, city engineer, told the committee the city had begun a master plan effort and applied for federal infrastructure grants in earlier years to support a city network: “We did apply for some grants...we applied about $5,000,000 out of the $81,000,000,000 that was available, I believe, for network infrastructure,” he said.

Committee members and staff discussed implementation issues: right-of-way limitations, coordination with multiple private service providers, where conduit would terminate, and whether conduit should accompany water, power and other utilities in a shared box. Staff said the city’s IT and public-works teams are familiar with conduit standards and could define technical specifications (for example, conduit size and mapping requirements) and the master plan needed to tie a requirement to the city’s land-development code. “Let’s just do this, Vlad. You already had the beginnings of a master plan...Maybe we can further develop that, and then the requirement comes with it,” one planning staff member said.

No formal motion or vote occurred. Instead, staff and committee members agreed to continue work: refine the fiber master plan, coordinate with IT, public services (engineering), and consultants, and evaluate potential amendments to the land development code that would attach conduit requirements to development approvals. Staff noted that some developers already install fiber or conduit as part of private construction and that capturing those opportunities during development review would be preferable to later retrofits.

The committee also discussed trade-offs: whether to require only conduit (leaving fiber ownership/operation to a later decision) or to pursue a city-owned fiber network immediately. Multiple speakers emphasized that the immediate, lower-cost step is to require conduit and mapping now so the city can choose its own provider or deploy city-owned fiber later. Deputy Quinn Henry said that having city-owned conduit reduces dependence on private providers and improves public-safety responsiveness.

Next steps described at the meeting: staff will continue developing the master plan and meet with IT and public-services engineering to draft technical standards, then return with options for how to incorporate conduit requirements into the land development code and DRC review process. No timeline or formal enforcement date was adopted at the meeting.