The smallest of the propositions in the 2017 municipal bond program expected to go on the May 2017 ballot may be the one that causes the most stir among voters.

The City Council on Wednesday publicly reviewed for the first time the proposed list of 158 projects in the $850 million proposal slated for next year’s ballot. The city plans to spend $20 million in a “neighborhood improvements” category — a proposition not seen before in San Antonio’s municipal bond programs. Its thrust would be to create affordable housing in San Antonio.

Unlike the other categories that are expected to go before voters — streets, bridges and sidewalks; drainage and flood control; parks and recreation; and facilities — which include lists of proposed projects, the neighborhood improvements category comprises a dozen geographic areas noteworthy for their distressed properties. But no specific projects in that category will be detailed by the May 6 election.

City officials had to jump through some hoops to arrive at Wednesday’s proposal. In 1997, voters here made the city charter more restrictive, amending the city’s guiding document to say that the city could sell bonds only for public-works projects for public purposes. The charter was most recently amended in May 2015, and Texas cities can only amend their charters once every two years. Because the upcoming election falls just days short of the two-year period since the charter was last amended, changing the document at the next election would appear improbable.

Officials devised a work-around that they say meets legal muster. In an interview, City Manager Sheryl Sculley said she’s unsure whether there could be a legal challenge to the city’s proposal for urban renewal and that she believes that voters will be OK with the plan.

“Times change,” she said. “Our community has evolved.”

If voters approve the proposition, through its Office of Urban Revitalization, the city would acquire blighted properties and conduct the requisite demolitions, site improvements and environmental remediation to make them ready for development.

Once the property is ready for development, the city would sell it to either non-profit or for-profit housing developers at fair value to construct affordable housing, Deputy City Manager Peter Zanoni told the council. Fair value is typically lower than fair-market value and is used to encourage development in certain situations.

Councilman Alan Warrick asked whether there would be a minimum percentage of affordable housing under the plan. Ultimately, there may be — if the council chooses to set a level. But that wasn’t part of the city’s proposal.

“No percentage necessary as long as we can demonstrate and show that there is some affordable housing,” Zanoni said.

Early next year, the council will approve an urban renewal plan, which will prescribe exactly what can be done. Those details could help shape whether the proposition gets the votes it needs for approval.

Some officials privately say they’re concerned about the proposition. There’s at least some worry that the proposition could harm other traditional infrastructure categories. Councilman Mike Gallagher raised questions about it Wednesday, voicing concerns that voters might be upset with the matter.

“Will the voters know what they’re voting on?” he said. “It sounds like we’re asking for $20 million and then we’ll decide what we’re going to do with it.”

Mayor Ivy Taylor said the vast majority of the bond is about addressing the city’s streets and drainage. The neighborhood revitalization proposition amounts to less than 3 percent of the entire bond proposal.

“I think we as a community have been looking forward to an opportunity to do something a little innovative and to be more proactive in relation to neighborhood reinvestment, and so I view this as an opportunity to kind of have a pilot program,” she said.

Taylor added that people might be uncomfortable with the “those old-time terms ‘urban renewal,’ but that’s what the federal government has labeled it, and those are the kind of statutes that we’re working within.”

Sculley said council members have expressed interest in using the bond to help create opportunities for affordable housing and see this as a first attempt through a bond program. The charter could get amended again to make it easier for the city and future bond programs could include higher levels of funding, she said.

The other 97 percent of the bond proposal includes $450 million for 59 streets, bridges and sidewalks projects, $144 million for 18 drainage and flood control projects, $116 million for 59 parks and recreation projects and $120 million for 21 facilities projects.

Mike Frisbie, the director of the city’s Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, told council members that this bond program will leverage more non-city funds than previous programs. A third of the bond — about $284 million — will be combined with $386 million of non-city funds across 37 projects, he said.

Councilman Ron Nirenberg applauded that leveraging, and inquired about how much of the $386 million was from private sources as opposed to non-city taxpayer dollars. Frisbie said that information wasn’t readily available but would be calculated.

Now, citizen oversight committees will begin meeting to discuss the proposal and make their own recommendations to the council in December. In February, the council will call the 2017 bond election, setting ballot language for the May election.

jbaugh@express-news.net

Twitter: @jbaugh