Glendale outlines 10-year road and bridge plan, backs Issue 12 levy to fund repairs

David Lumsden, the village administrator, told residents at a town-hall presentation that the Village of Glendale will ask voters this November to approve Issue 12, a 4.5-mill, 10-year permanent improvement levy restricted by Ohio law to road and bridge construction, reconstruction, repair or repaving. “This is a 4 and a half mil, 10 10 year permanent improvement road and bridge levy,” Lumsden said, adding that proceeds cannot be used for salaries or general operations and will be placed in a dedicated capital fund subject to state audit.

The levy would begin on the January 2026 tax bill if approved and generate an estimated $614,000 a year for the village, Lumsden said. He gave the example that the levy would add about $158 per $100,000 of assessed value; for an average Glendale property (roughly $380,000), Lumsden estimated a tax increase of about $600 annually. Over the 10-year term, the levy would yield a little over $6 million for capital work.

Why it matters: Glendale officials framed the levy as a way to complete a coordinated capital program that pairs underground utility replacement with full repaving, not just surface treatments. Lumsden said the village’s five-year strategic plan and a community survey (about 57% of respondents) prioritized infrastructure as the highest investment need.

Lumsden outlined recent and planned projects, starting with a 2020 Sharon Avenue water-main replacement (about $2 million) and a 2021 Chester repaving (about $600,000). He described the village’s preferred sequence: replace or repair underground infrastructure first, then repave the street so new pavement is not later disturbed. That approach guided work on Albion, where a stormwater pipe replacement and a detention pond at South Troy and Oak reduced flooding in the neighborhood.

Unexpected field findings and program scale: Contractors digging for a water main on Ivy Avenue found only 2 to 3 inches of asphalt over dirt and “no road base,” Lumsden said, a condition that requires deeper substructure work and changed the earlier resurfacing plan for that street. The village has completed roughly $5.2 million in infrastructure projects over the past five years and has identified about $6.7 million of repaving work for the next 10 years — roughly 8.5 miles of streets, or about 60% of the village’s road mileage. Combined with recent work, officials said about 77% of streets would be addressed over the last five years plus the next decade.

Funding mix: Lumsden described multiple funding sources. Water and sewer projects commonly use low-interest loans from the Ohio Water Development Authority; he cited a loan used for recent work at about 1.8% interest, repaid from utility-rate receipts over 20–30 years. The village also has a street construction fund that receives about $200,000 a year in gas-and-license-tax revenue for street maintenance and eligible improvements. A central capital resource is the Village Plan and General Improvement (VPGI) fund, which Lumsden said holds about $7 million and generates roughly 3–4% interest used for recurring capital purchases (police cruisers, a forthcoming fire truck, public-works equipment).

A recent grant reduces local borrowing: Lumsden announced the village secured a $1,180,000 grant from Hamilton County (SORTA) for repaving Fountain and Ivy Avenues; the village will match the grant 50/50, reducing the village’s long-term borrowing needs and lowering annual debt-service pressure for that project.

On the VPGI principal: Residents asked why the village does not simply spend down VPGI to pay for capital work. Lumsden said draining the fund’s principal would undermine its self-sustaining interest income and leave the village without a predictable source for routine capital needs. “If you were to take that $7,000,000 ... the only thing that could rebuild it at that point would be either operating surpluses or additional revenue sources,” he said, urging prudence in preserving the fund’s long-term sustainability.

Next steps: Lumsden said the village will publish detailed materials online, provide clearer calculations of the levy’s share of residents’ total tax bill, and hold another town-hall (possibly digital) before the election. No formal vote or council action on the levy was recorded at the meeting; Lumsden urged residents to ask follow-up questions by email or at the village office.

Ending note: The presentation closed with an invitation for further questions, a promise to post slides and video, and a reminder that ODOT and other outside agencies (for example on state routes) influence project timing on roads such as Congress Avenue.