Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Selma City Council reluctantly agreed to approve a $250,000 contract with Seay, Seay & Litchfield to perform services related to the proposed Resilience Tourism Multiplex.

The vote passed with a 4-3 vote. Council members Leisa James, Samuel Randolph, Atkin Jemison and Michael Johnson all voted in favor of the proposal. Council President Warren “Billy” Young and Council members Clay Carmichael and Christie Thomas both voted against the proposal.

With Councilwoman Jannie Thomas abstaining from voting and Councilman Troy Harvill not present, the measure passed.

Young and other council members who voted against it were asking for more time to review the proposal, and recommending sending it back to committee, which had a 30-minute meeting prior to the council meeting Tuesday.

Johnson and Randolph said they were ready to put a motion on the floor for discussion. After doing so, the measure passed with a split vote.

Planning and Development Director Danielle Wooten said they needed to move forward with the project as soon as possible. She said this project is being paid out of a $4 million grant “with no match” they received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They were notified that they received it in 2023.

However, the project had not begun as of yet. The City of Selma Planning and Development Department advertised for a request for proposals on the project beginning Jan. 8. The deadline of proposals was due by Feb. 17. The consultant selection was scheduled for March 11.

According to bid documents on the city’s website, it says, “The Resilience Tourism Multiplex consists of the design and construction of a multi-purpose public facility campus to contain 20,000 square feet for convention, entertainment, and educational services. Additionally, the facility includes the space for the relocation and consolidation of the City’s governmental administrative services, water and sewer utility services, and options for public safety services including fire and police stations, to enhance city operations and safety services on one public campus.”

The proposed location of the multiplex is located on Water Avenue from Sylvan Street/Martin Luther King Street to the railroad crossing. The area shown on the proposal’s map also includes the historic Selma depot property.

Wooten said information on the project was emailed to the council at the beginning of April. However, a community development committee meeting had not been scheduled until Tuesday afternoon at 5:30 p.m., only allowing 30 minutes of discussion prior to the council meeting.

The scope of the project according to Wooten is divided into two phases. The first phase is to study the feasibility and determine what the scope of the project will be. The second phase is for design and to put the project out for bid if the council approves the project.

Quentin Jones with the architect firm said in their presentation that they will conduct market research to determine the market for the proposed private-public partnership. Right now, the scope of the project has not been determined. The firm said they would take some community input to determine what would be best for the community.

Early plans have included a 10,000 square-foot convention center. The would also move the city hall offices to the proposed location along with the Selma Water Works offices.

Johnson said that he wanted to move forward with the proposal.

“We can’t lose,” Johnson said. “We have the money. There’s no match. I feel comfortable with you looking at this for us.”

James questioned how the money would come in from HUD.

“It’s up to us to determine when we submit for the reimbursements,” Wooten said. “What we typically do is submit quarterly. It’s approve within two to three days and received within three to seven days.”

Christie Thomas wanted to make sure it was clear that the city currently does not have the money. The amount was $250,000, and would be reimbursed.

“And if we get to a point that it’s not feasible for us to do this project, will we reimbursed for this money,” Christie Thomas asked.

“Yes, so every time we pay invoices which their contract, they’re supposed to invoice us monthly,” Wooten answered. “It’s the same on every single project that we have in the city. We get invoiced monthly, and we pay the invoice. Like I said, if we wanted to exactly after we get the performance report to submit for reimbursement, we would get reimbursed immediately within seven days.”

“That’s $4 million without a plan,” Christie Thomas said.

“Yes, the funding is for us to hire them and pay them to do that,” Wooten answered.

Wooten said there is a line item for professional services, and their contract is to provide the services in Phase “1A and 1B” of their proposal.

Wooten asked that if the council could approve the resolution to approve the contract at its meeting Tuesday. Young said that the committee had not made a recommendation to the council.

“The committee needs to convene again and form a recommendation to bring to the council,” Young said.

Randolph made the motion to bring it to the floor to discuss it.

“Our minds may already be made up,” Randolph said. “Why don’t we vote right now.”

Carmichael said he still had questions about the deliverables.

“It seems like $200,000 would dive us well into phase 2 without us getting any deliverables,” Carmichael said. “What I don’t want to happen is that we vote on something, and then next thing we know we’re way on down the road.”

Young said the issue was placed in committee, and said unless there was a motion to bring the item out of committee, then they would move on to the next issue.

Randolph made the motion seconded by Johnson to bring it out of committee. The measure passed by a 4-3 vote. The same persons made the motion to pass the resolution, and it passed with another 4-3 vote.