Monticello council ratifies lower speed limit; separate ban on golf carts on Bridal Street fails after confusion

Monticello’s City Council on Nov. 24 ratified an ordinance lowering the speed limit on a segment of city streets to 35 mph but declined to adopt a separate ban that would have barred low‑speed vehicles such as golf carts and UTVs from Bridal Street.

The ratified measure, ordinance 2025-56, was presented by city staff and framed by police as a safety response to alignment, sight‑distance and intersection concerns on Bridge Street and nearby approaches. Police staff told the council they could not find accident reports inside the city involving golf carts, but said there have been several crashes on the corridor at issue. After debate the council approved the speed‑limit ordinance on a roll‑call vote.

The council separately considered ordinance 2025-74, which would have prohibited non‑highway and low‑speed vehicles on Bridal Street west of Foothill Road and Railroad Street. The motion to adopt 2025-74 generated questions about whether the ban was necessary and confusion during the roll call; the presiding officer later announced the motion failed. A council member subsequently clarified from the dais that, because the ban did not pass, golf carts remain allowed on that stretch under existing speed-limit rules.

Residents who spoke during public comment said they and many neighbors purchased golf carts or a UTV after city communications led them to believe such vehicles could be driven into town. Melissa Nichols, a resident of Apple Tree subdivision, said she bought a UTV and brought it home Oct. 30 after asking city staff and the police about registration and use; she said the vehicle is equipped with seat belts and lights and that her young son enjoys rides. “We brought it home on October 30, and as we called to have it registered, we were told that there was conversation at a previous meeting that was not going to allow them,” Nichols said, adding that families in her neighborhood have registered vehicles since then.

Resident Zach Craver told the council he is data‑driven and has not seen the engineering or crash analysis he expected before a rule change. “It feels very cruel that that’s being done,” Craver said of the city’s apparent reversal, arguing the city acted without adequate study.

City staff and council members repeatedly returned to process and data. One council member urged that speed changes be accompanied by an engineering or traffic investigation before decisions are finalized; police said traffic investigation is an option and that IDOT recommendations consider alignment, sight distance and adjacent uses such as school bus stops and pedestrian crossings. The police chief summarized accident tracking for the corridor and said, “I can’t find any that involve a low speed vehicle, a golf cart, anywhere in the city corporate limits,” while noting that regular‑vehicle crashes had occurred on the corridor.

Alderman Yu apologized from the dais for the procedural confusion around the pair of items, saying she recognized residents made financial decisions based on the earlier actions. “I think in the future, we’re just gonna be very cognizant of all the repercussions involved in our decisions,” Yu said.

What’s next: the speed‑limit ordinance was ratified and is in effect per the council action. The separate proposal to prohibit low‑speed vehicles on Bridal Street failed, so current low‑speed vehicle rules tied to speed limits remain in place; council members said they may revisit restrictions if safety issues emerge or if future data warrant additional regulation.