The Selma City Council held a work session Monday where disagreements over the proposed gas tax increase were once again on full display.

Tom Headley, speaking during a portion of the meeting reserved for public comment, took exception with what he said were council members’ apprehension over allowing him to speak since he lives outside of police jurisdiction.

However, Headley stated, his taxes would be increased along with those in the city limits.

“We should have a voice if we’re being taxed,” Headley said.

Headley stated that he was unable to receive a copy of the proposed tax ordinance from the mayor’s office and has not seen any public postings of the ordinance nor heard it read in its entirety.

Further, he contended that the ordinance should have gone before the city’s Finance Committee and not the Public Works Committee and doubted that the city would be able to generate the $1.8 million originally slated to be taken in as a result of the gas tax increase.

Headley also noted that the word infrastructure is not in either of the proposed ordinances, one for a 3-cent gas tax increase and one for a 5-cent gas tax increase, which he accessed through another citizen.

Both Councilwoman Miah Jackson and Councilwoman Jannie Thomas were missing parts of the ordinance at the start of the meeting.

Christopher Minter also spoke in opposition of the proposed tax increase, noting that only 55 percent of the tax was earmarked for infrastructure work, despite it previously being touted as a measure to be used wholly for repairing roads and sidewalks and other crumbling infrastructure.

Councilman John Leashore clarified the language in the ordinance – the 55 percent earmark is in the ordinance for a 5-cent gas tax increase; that percentage represents the 5-cent increase after it has been added to the 4-cent tax already in place.

Specifically, 55 percent of the total 9-cent tax would be designated for infrastructure repairs.

In the 3-cent ordinance, that percentage is 43 percent.

Despite that, Minter asserted that the city has not properly used the revenue from the 4-cent gas tax that it has already been collecting and had questions regarding a clause that seems to bar future councils from repeal.

City Attorney Woodruff Jones clarified the clause, which he says will revoke previous ordinances related to gas taxes and replace them with the new language.

Councilwoman Miah Jackson chimed in with her opposition, wondering what the previous money had been spent on and why it was not previously all earmarked for infrastructure repairs.

“I have not been silent on my opposition to this,” Jackson said.

“The language of the ordinance, in my humble opinion, is as it should be,” Leashore responded.

Later in the meeting, Leashore noted the percentage of the proposed statewide gas tax that cities would receive – 1 percent – and noted concern regarding the possibility that the state’s legislation would prevent cities from raising their own gas taxes.

Jackson said there is no evidence that such a caveat would be added to the statewide legislation.

For her part, Jackson thinks the city should hold off on raising gas taxes and stick by the side of the Alabama League of Municipalities (ALM), which is lobbying for cities and counties to receive a larger share of future gas tax revenues.

Jackson also noted that, contrary to claims made by the mayor, counties are authorized to use tax revenue for city work.

Jackson said the new tax would put the city at odds with the ALM and would be bad for citizens and local businesses, specifically convenience stores which rely on point-of-purchase sales.

Leashore also discussed his gunshot ordinance, which will be up for its first read at Tuesday’s regular meeting of the council, which impose penalties of up to $500 in fines and 60 days in jail without the possibility of a suspended sentence for violators.

Leashore also spoke briefly about last week’s Public Works Committee meeting in which the gas tax increase was the focus of conversation.

“This is the council’s problem, it’s not the mayor’s problem,” Leashore said of approving new revenue streams for infrastructure needs. “We can accept this recommendation or we can look at some other initiatives.”

Jackson, in what has become tradition at council meetings, called for financial accountability at City Hall and blasted the mayor’s office for not responding to her requests.

According to Jackson, one of the only responses she’s received from the mayor’s office stated that he does not receive or respond to emails personally, after previously stating that he was having technical issues related to his email account.

Jackson said that she still has not received full employment information from City Hall, nor has she received requested purchase orders, daily deposits or invoices.

“How can we ensure we’re making the best decisions when we don’t have a full grasp of what we’re spending?” Jackson said. “When I make a decision, I don’t want to make a decision without all of the information. That’s the problem, I cannot get the information. When I ask for financial information about the city, I want it.”

Jackson also raised concerns about new cameras installed in the city’s finance department and an apparent sewage contract that was never approved by the council.

Thomas also chimed in, complaining about the lack of communication in the mayor’s office – Thomas said any assertions that the mayor answers or returns phone calls is a “bald-faced lie” and citizens are unable to reach the mayor by phone.

Further, Thomas noted being tired of having to ring doorbells in City Hall.

“That is not fair,” Thomas said.