Philomath council approves findings to send 10 ‘island’ parcels to voters for annexation

The Philomath City Council voted 7–0 on Aug. 11 to adopt amended findings of fact approving an application to submit island annexations for 10 parcels to the city’s electorate, and directed staff to draft an ordinance for council review on Oct. 13, 2025. The parcels total about 15.454 acres and include a mix of residential, industrial and a small public right-of-way.

City staff told the council the parcels are “island” properties—areas of unincorporated land surrounded by city limits—and recommended annexation so the properties would be subject to the same municipal services, taxes and regulations as adjacent lots. “If the city council agrees that the annexations meet the criteria, its decision will be forwarded to the electorate … the May 2026 general election,” the meeting chair said.

Councilors and staff emphasized the procedural nature of the night’s vote: the council’s quasi-judicial role was to decide whether the evidence met development-code criteria. If the council’s findings are adopted, the question of annexation will go to Benton County voters on the May 2026 ballot; the council will not make the final annexation decision tonight.

City manager Chris Workman presented the staff report, saying the group of island parcels are scattered around town and receive many city services informally but are outside city taxing and enforcement regimes. Workman listed key technical points in the staff report, including that the properties are a mix of low- and medium-density residential, light industrial and one small right-of-way; that no development is planned at this time; and that the city can provide water, wastewater, storm-drain, parks and street services if annexed.

Property owner and speaker Charlotte Williams opposed the annexation for three contiguous lots on South Nineteenth Street, telling the council, “We are not completely surrounded,” and arguing the three tax lots do not meet her reading of the term “island” because each lot is touched by non‑city land on at least one side. City staff and the city attorney responded that both state statute and the city’s code allow the city to treat a grouping of adjacent non‑city lots as an island “territory.” Staff said the three lots would be combined and presented to voters as a single territory so the electorate would accept or reject annexation for all three together.

Councilors also amended the staff report language to substitute “territories” where consistent with the municipal code. The council adopted three wording changes requested during deliberations so the findings read, for example, “all territories fit the definition of an island territory” and “no development is planned for any of the proposed territories at this time.” That amendment passed 7–0 before the final adoption of findings and the direction to draft an ordinance.

Staff recommended—and the council accepted—a condition of approval that property owners not be required to construct sidewalks adjacent to the annexed parcels until the owner submits a development application that would otherwise trigger sidewalk installation. Staff also noted planning commission approval of the same findings at a July 21 public hearing.

The council discussed whether to leave the record open for newly delivered legal descriptions provided that day; after brief discussion staff characterized those descriptions as clarifying material and the council moved forward. The city attorney confirmed state law requires island annexations to go to the voters; the city’s code requires formal action by ordinance, which is why staff will return with a draft ordinance on Oct. 13, 2025. The council’s action tonight was to adopt the findings and refer the question to voters; if a majority of voters approve in May, annexation will take effect as provided in statute and the city’s code (residential parcels generally become subject to city rules on sale or after a three‑year period; commercial/industrial parcels would be annexed immediately upon a favorable vote).