OCEAN SPRINGS, MS — After weeks of questions, the City of Ocean Springs has now officially acknowledged that no agreement ever existed in which developers promised to transfer ownership of the 1515 Government Street parking garage to the City — despite repeatedly telling the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) the opposite in its $8 million GCRF grant application.
In response to a GC Wire public records request for the ownership-transfer agreement cited in the grant application, the City produced no such agreement. Instead, it provided a memorandum of understanding from August 17, 2021, where the Board approved a future lease arrangement — not a transfer of ownership.
This directly contradicts Page 3 of the GCRF application jointly submitted by the City and OHOS Land, which states:
“OHOS Land, LLC has entered into an agreement in which it will transfer ownership of the parking garage and amenities to the City upon completing construction.”
The City’s response confirms that the agreement described to MDA simply did not exist.
The revelation comes just days after MDA Executive Director Bill Cork announced the agency is sending personnel to Ocean Springs as part of an “investigation” into the grant. The investigation announcement came after GC Wire reports showed multiple promises made in the grant application never came to fruition.
After the grant application was approved, the city continued to promise they would own the garage after completion of construction in several agreements signed by former Mayor Kenny Holloway and former City Clerk Patty Gaston.
Contradictions in MOU Agreement
The MOU between the city and OHOS is deliberately contradicting. The signed agreement specifically states: “The city shall receive the benefit of the MDA GCRF funds pursuant to the transfer and receipt of completed parking garage at no cost to the city.”
However, the next section outlines a lease agreement that shows the private company will retain ownership.
The MOU literally says: The City will receive the garage at no cost.
Then immediately flips and says: Actually, OHOS will own the garage and the City will lease it and pay its expenses.
That is not a drafting error — it’s a structural contradiction.
And in a grant-funded project, a contradiction in a document tied to the application is a compliance red flag.
In the end, the city does not own the garage.
Tonight’s Meeting: City Attorney Signals Private Session — But the Law Doesn’t Support It
Aldermen Steve Tillis, Karen Stennis, and Shannon Pfeiffer requested that a full discussion of the parking garage be placed on the agenda for tonight’s Board of Aldermen meeting.
It was added, but the agenda packet includes a memo from City Clerk Christine Millard stating that the City Attorney has advised portions of the discussion may qualify for executive session under:
• Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-7(4)(b): “strategy sessions or negotiations relating to prospective litigation or litigation when an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the public body’s position.”
• Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-7(4)(g): “discussions regarding the prospective purchase, sale, or leasing of land.”
However, neither exemption appears to apply to the discussion that aldermen have actually requested — which is simply to talk openly about the validity of the parking garage lease, the promises made to MDA, and the City’s recent admission that no ownership-transfer agreement ever existed.
Why § 25-41-7(4)(b) Likely Does Not Apply
That exemption requires actual litigation, or at minimum a concrete threat of litigation, plus a showing that public discussion would harm the City’s legal position.
- No lawsuit exists involving the parking garage.
- There is no stated threat of litigation from any party.
- The City has not identified a claimant, a demand, or a dispute.
Mississippi courts have repeatedly held that “mere speculation” about litigation is not enough to justify closing a meeting. There must be active, identifiable legal exposure — not general discomfort about discussing a questionable project in public.
Why § 25-41-7(4)(g) Likely Does Not Apply
This exemption covers negotiations related to the prospective purchase, sale, or leasing of land.
- The lease terms with OHOS have been publicly discussed since 2021.
- The land in question is already privately owned, and the City is not negotiating a purchase or sale.
- The lease terms were already agreed to in a 2021 memo of understanding. Only the finalized lease agreement is before the Board.
Discussing whether the lease is good, bad, legal, illegal, advisable, or inadvisable is not a “prospective leasing negotiation.” It is oversight of an already-executed deal — something that must be done in public.
The Public Has a Right to Hear This Discussion
Nothing in tonight’s agenda item requires the Board to:
- negotiate land purchases,
- reveal litigation strategy, or
- discuss anything confidential.
Instead, aldermen requested an open discussion that will likely include:
- the validity of the garage agreement,
- the project’s financial exposure,
- the $8 million GCRF grant application promises, and
- why the City told MDA an ownership-transfer agreement existed when it now admits it did not.
These topics are public issues involving public money and a public facility — exactly the type of conversation the Open Meetings Act requires to be held in front of the public.
If the Board chooses executive session, it will be a policy decision, not a legal requirement. And that policy decision likely would not conform to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.
Ocean Springs has repeatedly used “potential litigation” as an excuse to hold meetings in private. When asked about that rationale, city officials have previously told GC Wire that “every contract is potential litigation.” That blanket reasoning would likely fold under scrutiny if challenged in court or in front of the Ethics Commission.
Why It All Matters to the Public
The ownership-transfer commitment was not a minor detail — it was central to the public-benefit justification the city gave for the State granting $8 million in GCRF funds to a private company.
Now, with MDA launching an investigation and the City admitting the transfer agreement never existed, transparency in tonight’s discussion is more important than ever.
GC Wire will be at the meeting and will report whether aldermen decide to conduct this discussion in public, or whether the public is asked to leave the room.
