Council approves FY26 city budget

     The City of Monticello approved the Fiscal Year 2026 budget and certification of taxes.

   During the April 21 Monticello City Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the city budget.

   No comments were made from members of the public.

   The city's budget has to be sent to the state no later than April 30.

   The amount of dollars proposed to be collected from the tax levy is $2,223,831. That's just 1.2 percent ($27,442) more than FY25. The resulting tax rate will be $15.22169. This does include the city's debt levy. This rate is exactly the same as FY25.

   "I have a few comments to make," remarked Council member Dave Goedken. "I sure appreciate what (Council member) Jake (Ellwood) and (Council member) Mary (Phelan) have done looking at expenses and really reviewing the budget and changing some of the numbers that were related to inflated expenses and short on revenues and just kind of inflating the budget. But we raised taxes 14 percent a couple of years ago. Last year, we reduced it 5 percent."

   Prior to the discussion about the budget, members of the Monticello Area Chamber of Commerce (MACC) provided an update on their welcome signage project during the Open Forum. MACC is seeking $10,000 from the city to apply toward replacing two welcome signs along Highway 151.

   "I’ve talked to quite a few people after this last meeting and the issue with the sign, it’s stirred up a lot of issues, too, as far as spending property taxes responsibly," Goedken said. "This signage thing has brought up a lot of concerns as far as us spending tax dollars efficiently."

   Goedken also referenced the painting of the south water tower, which took place last summer.

   "The 'M' that’s on the westside of the (south) water tower, that was not an efficient use of tax dollars," he commented.

   He further mentioned a project that was completed in the spring of 2020, the demolition of the digital sign that was located on Highway 151, as another inefficient use of taxpayer money.

   "It cost $115,000 (to operate). We had astronomical expenses electric-wise," continued Goedken. "And then it cost us $6,000 to actually tear it down."

   "That sign you’re talking about that got demolished has nothing to do with this year’s budget," said Council member Mary Phelan, trying to stay on task.

   " No, but it’s an example of not spending property tax dollars efficiently," Goedken said.

   While Phelan agreed with Goedken's sentiments about the former digital sign, she felt the council did their due diligence with the FY26 city budget.

   "I feel that we thoroughly vetted this budget and all of us asked good questions," she said. "The managers (department heads) did a great job of presenting their budgets, and it alleviated a lot of questions that we had from last year. I understand your concern, but I don’t feel that’s enough to have a no vote for this particular budget."

   "No citizen who I talked to is in favor of it," Goedken said in defense of his "no" vote.

   "You’re hung up on one issue in a city that’s spending millions of dollars. I’m sorry to disagree with you on this," Phelan said.

   "I’m fine to agree to disagree with you," Goedken offered.

   "On that sign, if you divide it out by the numbers in the community here, spending $10,000 on that sign costs the public $2.50 a year," noted Mayor Wayne Peach. "And if one car a day comes into town because they see the sign and they spend $25, let’s say that sign lasts 50 years, that’ll be $45,000 coming into the community for a $10,000 investment. I think that’s a benefit to the community, so I think it’s tax money well spent."

   The council approved the FY26 budget, with Goedken opposed.

   MACC Director Megan Beaman and Board President Allie Aschtgen provided an update to the council on their funding request for the welcome signs.

   The council sought images of the concept MACC was considering, as well as urging them to seek additional funding such as grants so that the city was not the sole funding source.

   "What the sign currently looks like… it’s tan, it blends in, and it’s heavy on the words," relayed Beaman. "So when people are driving by, they don’t exactly get the idea to come to Monticello. They just blur past all that; it’s difficult to read going fast on 151."

   MACC worked with Express Sign & Logo LLC on the concepts and size, with an estimate of just over $15,000. That's for two 16-foot-by-16-foot signs.

   "It's really just promoting the different aspects of Monticello: the fair, heavy on ag, and Mon Maq Dam," suggested Beaman.

   The signs would also us red and black, colors synonymous with Monticello.

   The chamber also applied for $5,000 from the Monticello Give to Grow grant. The MACC board has also agreed to put in $5,000, too. Those funds would go toward replacing the wooden posts that hold up the signs, in the event they are not suited to withstand the new signs.

   "We don’t want to put a brand-new sign up there and have the old, wooden posts. We’d like to update those as well," suggested Beaman.

   Phelan asked Beaman and Aschtgen if they’ve looked into other sources of funding beyond the one grant.

   "In the fall we’d like to apply for the Travel Iowa grant. It’s tourism based," Beaman said. "As long as we can prove that it draws in people from out of state as well, which we can easily prove that."

   Phelan asked if MACC was still seeking $10,000 from the city. And if MACC were successful with other grants, would those funds come back to the city for footing the cost?

   Aschtgen suggested if the council didn't want to give the full $10,000 upfront, the chamber would be amendable to receiving the funds on a reimbursement basis.

   "There are funds out there," urged Phelan. "You came to us first and said there was no funding."

   "We’re happy to keep looking at grants and find funding elsewhere if needed," reassured Beaman.

   Goedken asked MACC why they were only applying for $5,000 from Give to Grow when the cap is $7,000.

   "If you’re looking for funding, why wouldn’t you try and get what you can?" he said.

   "The idea was for us to match, also, whatever we get," noted Aschtgen. "$5,000, we thought, would be enough."

   No action was taken on MACC's FY26 funding request.