December Update from Georgetown’s Mayor-Elect Jay Doyle

Citizens of Georgetown,

First, let me extend to each of you my best wishes for the upcoming holiday season. May you find joy and happiness with your friends and family.

As my transition team assists me in preparing to take office in the new year, I want to keep you informed on what is happening in your city.  I plan to make this a monthly event so you will be aware of what is happening and hopefully, you will involve yourself in helping the city move forward.

The bond for city hall has been passed by the city council and will close on Tuesday December 9, 2025.  The current cost of City Hall is $7.7 million and I do not see the final cost exceeding that amount. Annual debt service will be $308,000.00. The first payment, equal to 1/12th of the annual amount, will be due January 1, 2026.

As most of you know, the city administrator has been given a new contract along with a raise, and it is my understanding that several other key members of the city administration have also received substantial increases; typically, performance reviews and raises for city and contract employees are administered at the end of an employee’s current contract or on the anniversary of their hire date. My concern is if the city is deviating from this protocol without clear explanation could potentially put strain on our overall city budget.

On November 20, 2025, City Council the passed the first reading of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This version differs substantively from the one approved by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2025 — and those differences are significant and problematic. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of a UDO that incorporates the existing Zoning Ordinance, Architectural Review Board (ARB) guidelines, and Land Use Regulations. City Council’s version, by contrast, would adopt the UDO while repealing those existing ordinances and guidelines.

That change is not a minor drafting choice — it undermines the careful, layered protections and review processes our community relies on. Because the Council version removes and repeals the Zoning Ordinance, ARB guidelines, and Land Use Regulations, it would:

• Create uncertainty and regulatory gaps where longstanding protections currently exist.

• Make many non-conforming lots effectively unbuildable by changing dimensional and use standards without providing clear, workable alternatives.

• Circumvent established processes for altering Historic District regulations and protections, potentially violating legal requirements and community expectations for how historic design standards may be revised.

• Open opportunities for developers to secure approvals for projects that, under current rules, would require review and oversight by our boards and commissions. Deletions and ambiguous language can be exploited to avoid intended checks and balances.

Best practices and precedent elsewhere reinforce caution. Other municipalities undertaking a UDO rewrite typically take 18–24 months and engage consultants with subject-matter expertise to produce a coherent, legally sound document that integrates existing regulations and preserves review processes. The community benefits from a transparent, deliberate process that includes public input, legal vetting, and careful mapping between old and new codes so rights, responsibilities, and protections are preserved or improved — not erased.

The draft before Council now is a poorly written document with substantive consequences. It introduces uncertainty, weakens historic protections, and risks rendering many existing lots unbuildable without offering a clear, equitable replacement framework. It is not consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and should not be passed in its current form.

A responsible path forward:

• Halt the current adoption process and return the draft to the Planning Commission and staff for reconciliation with the Commission’s approved version.

• Commission or fund experienced land use consultants and municipal code attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review and redraft where needed.

• Ensure the UDO expressly incorporates — rather than repeals — existing Zoning Ordinance, ARB guidelines, and Land Use Regulations, or provide clear, explicit, legally defensible replacements with transitional provisions.

• Hold a public review period with workshops and hearings to explain changes, identify unintended impacts (e.g., non-conforming lots, Historic District alterations), and gather community input.

• Allow 18–24 months for a deliberate rewrite, testing of draft language, and legal vetting to avoid creating regulatory gaps or unintended developer advantages.

Georgetown deserves a UDO that strengthens our planning framework without dismantling crucial protections or rushing through a flawed draft. We should pause, fix the process, and produce a clear, legally sound ordinance that aligns with the Planning Commission’s intent and protects our community’s character and review safeguards.

 The following is an example of why we need to carefully and methodically update our ordinances.  On December 3, 2025, a developer sought permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 75-foot building and the hearing was postponed because required drawings were not even provided—illustrates precisely why we must carefully and methodically update our ordinances. How was a hearing date scheduled without the basic documentation necessary for informed review? How could a proposed structure of that scale, which would fundamentally alter the heart of our Historic District, proceed without evaluation by the Architectural Review Board? Does our Comprehensive Plan permit such a dramatic change, and who in city government is qualified to shepherd this proposal through the appropriate channels when we have been without a Planning Director since mid-February? The reality is that if the BZA had approved the variance, the only realistic way to stop it would be a lengthy and costly court battle—an outcome that undermines public input and good planning. Please plan to attend the BZA meeting on January 7, 2026 to voice your opinion.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the Steel Mill property.  I have reason to believe the potential buyer has completed its due diligence and is preparing to close on the property. Part of the closing could be an agreement with the city.  Since a new Fee in Lieu of Taxes or FILOT agreement has not been approved, my biggest concern is that the existing FILOT with Liberty Steel will be extended to the new owners.  The current FILOT agreement has Liberty Steel paying the city $5000.00 per year.  I believe includes, water, waste water and all other fees ordinarily paid to the city.  To put this in perspective, if you own a home and have your utilities provided by the city, you pay about the same or more than the steel mill.

As the new administration prepares to take office, we face expenses that exceed the city’s income. I had hoped the new FILOT agreement would require the new property owners of the steel mill to pay a fair and equitable share to the city; without that revenue, we will be unable to reduce utility bills, fund promised salary increases, or complete the new city hall. Absent that funding, the new administration will be forced to cut essential services and, regrettably, raise taxes. I respectfully ask whoever purchases the steel mill property to sit down with the incoming administration and negotiate a deal that is fair to all residents. I also urge the current City Council to respect the voters’ wishes by allowing the new administration to oversee adoption of the UDO and the FILOT agreement. The City Council will meet December 11, 2025 at 5:00 pm and December 18, 2025 at 5:30 pm; the city belongs to you—please attend and make your voice heard.

You can view the agendas for these meetings here.