The City Council instituted a pre-annexation fee policy this week that will provide the city with the amenities it needs to keep up with population growth once the housing market picks up again, but not everyone was in agreement with the decision. </p><p>During a sometimes contentious debate Councilman Mike Villalta questioned the timing and necessity of the policy. He requested further study of how other cities have crafted such a system. </p><p>Then Villalta accused fellow council members of rushing to approve the policy so five pending annexation proposals could be expedited. </p><p>"I don't see the urgency to adopt a policy," Villalta said. "I thought we were in control when these annexations come to us. So to not look at every opportunity to extract every dollar out of a developer makes me think these annexations are going to come quickly and they are going to be passed."</p><p>Councilman Joe Sousa accused Villalta, who pulled papers to run for mayor this week, of playing politics.</p><p>"I guess election season is alive and well. Let me tell you something, we've been talking about this since I got on this council. You've had plenty of time to do the research," Sousa said. "These annexation policies are very unique and very different. They're geared to one thing... that's things the community wants. I pulled dozens of them up on the Internet. They're easy to find. You can go get them. </p><p>"And I think the only reason we're talking about not doing this is because we're playing to some people who are just totally against whatever annexations come forward no matter what benefits it brings to the community."</p><p>The policy Los Banos officials were presented requires building developers to pay $5,000 per lot at the time building permits are issued. The money can go toward whatever amenity the City Council decides on by majority vote. Mayor Tommy Jones has previously said he would like the money to go toward the second phase of the community center project, a library and an aquatics center. </p><p>At Wednesday's council meeting Jones explained why he wanted the policy instituted. </p><p>"I sat here for years and years and I had people in the community, they said why don't you guys build this; why don't we have this? So many things the bottom line came down to one thing, we did not have the money," Jones said. "We can always sit and think and say nothing has ever been done... or we can come out of the box and say we don't have to wait. We can be the first to step up."</p><p>The pre-annexation fee policy also allows the council, if it chooses,to accept amenities from developers instead of money. </p><p>Councilwoman Anna Brooks praised the openness of the policy.</p><p>"I understand what Mr. Villalta is saying about not having all the information and maybe there are other communities out there doing things differently. I think that this is a very good starting point," Brooks said. "This is something we've needed for the last 20 years and we haven't done it. There's a good chance we look at this in two years, five years, 10 years and say it's not working, we may need to change something. It's a resolution, we can do that. And it's so flexible now we may not need to."</p><p>At one point, Villalta said he wanted the fee more than anyone and he believed it was a "milestone agreement." Then he said developers deserved to know what the fee was going to be without changes being made. </p><p>Sousa pointed out Villalta's contradiction.</p><p>Sousa also said by just taking three annexation proposals currently before the city, $16 million could be brought into Los Banos if the policy is adopted. </p><p>Because development of land being proposed for annexation may not occur for years, Villalta asked how the city would pay for the time emergency services may have to spend if a fire or crime occurs on the property. </p><p>City Manager Steve Rath said the city is looking at establishing a community facilities district that would force the developer to pay a fee on the property being annexed. Rath said that money could be collected even if no homes are built on the land.</p><p>Villalta was not the only person who was skeptical of the policy. One resident, Nathan Leon, accused the council of being bribed by developers and another, Diana Ingram, questioned whether the city was over-extending its infrastructure. </p><p>Sousa took offense at the bribe comment and Rath explained that the council will be reviewing a master plan of its infrastructure fees in the next few weeks. The infrastructure fees will take proposed annexations into account. </p><p>The policy was approved by a 3-1 vote. Villalta voted against it and Councilman Tom Faria recused his vote because of the appearance of a possible financial conflict.</p><p>Jones expressed disappointment that approving the policy became such a struggle.</p><p>"It amazes me," he said. "It's going to bring this type of money in the future to the community, to the council... and it comes off this way?"