OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC WIRE) – A confidential memo written by City Attorney David Harris outlines a legal standard under which former Mayor Kenny Holloway did not have authorization to execute grant agreements for the downtown parking garage — and those agreements would not be “enforceable.”
That conclusion is not standing alone. In a recent public meeting, five of the seven members of the Board of Aldermen also weighed in on the project, with their statements largely aligning with what GC Wire has reported for months about how the deal was presented, structured, and ultimately executed.
The legal standards and timeline outlined in Harris’s memo also reinforce the key findings of GC Wire’s reporting on the parking garage controversy over the past several months.
The city attorney’s document, titled “Parking Garage Timeline and Memorandum,” was distributed to elected officials in November 2025 and contained a warning that the content should not be made available to the public.
Harris’s analysis undercuts the Mississippi Development Authority’s position that Ocean Springs must enter into a long-term lease agreement with the private owners of the garage or risk an $8 million clawback of the grant money.
The parking garage project – tied to the OS1515 hotel located on Government Street – has been plagued by questions over whether state officials were misled about ownership in grant applications, whether the contracts were ever properly authorized, and why MDA is now demanding a lease that does not appear in the agreement. (See GC Wire’s full investigation here.)
The Secret Harris Memo: MDA Agreements ‘Not Enforceable’
In his memo, Harris distinctly states that all details of any contract must appear in city minutes and be approved by the Board of Aldermen or the contract is invalid.
“All official actions of the board of aldermen – including votes, contracts, ordinances, appointments, authorizations, and expenditures – must be explicitly recorded in the official minutes,” the city attorney wrote.
“If the board approves a contract, the terms of the contract and the board’s approval must be clearly stated in the minutes,” Harris added. “If the minutes do not reflect the action, the contract is not enforceable against the municipality.”
Those words are important, because official records show the details of the MDA grant agreements never appeared in any city minutes and the Board never approved execution of the agreements – facts that would trigger Harris’s “not enforceable” legal theory.
In the memo, Harris stopped short of outright saying Holloway executed the agreements without authorization, leaving Board members to sift through the documents themselves, if they chose to do so.
Municipalities almost always ensure this legal standard is met by attaching copies of actual contracts and agreements to meeting minutes. A public records request confirmed the absence of any Board vote authorizing Holloway to execute any of the four MDA grant agreements funding the garage.
Aldermen Pile On
In 2019, the city was a co-applicant for a Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (GCRF) grant, administered by MDA. The city partnered with OHOS Development LLC to seek funding for a parking garage to be attached to the 1515 Government Street hotel / condo project.
Two applications were written by an OHOS attorney. Both specifically stated the parking garage would belong to the city if MDA gave them the money. Only after the grant requests were submitted to decision-makers and working through the approval process did the city and its partner start replacing ownership language with a long-term lease.
In a November Board meeting where the garage was discussed in detail, several aldermen offered strong opinions on the situation.
Hinton Puts to Rest the ‘Sales Pitch’ Rhetoric
Harris told board members, both in open meetings and again in the confidential memo that the ownership language in the applications were merely a “sales pitch” to get MDA to issue the grant.
But at the November meeting, Alderman-at-Large Matthew Hinton directly challenged that characterization.
Hinton, who served on the Planning Commission up until he was elected as an alderman, told the public the “concept originally came before the planning commission back several years ago.” He said that during that public hearing, developers told commissioners the garage “would be belonging to the city.” This revelation shows the promise of turning over ownership of the garage did not just appear in aspirational grant applications, but also as testimony to Ocean Springs planning commissioners.
Municipalities rely on testimony from developers in public hearings to accurately reflect proposed projects. Characterizing those statements as a “sales pitch” would raise questions about the reliability of representations made to commissioners, undermining the entire process of public hearings.
Tillis ‘Would Not Support’ the Lease
Ward 1 Alderman Steve Tillis did not mince his words.
“We as a board need to figure out who owns the parking garage,” he said. “It appears that they own it but at the same time, the application for the best I can tell was made that we would receive the parking garage.”
Tillis said that he doesn’t know when or why the city changed direction from owning the garage to leasing it, but encouraged fellow Board members to keep digging.
“I hope that we can continue digging and looking at different documents and trying to figure out exactly how we were promised ownership and now we’re not.”
He said that until answers are uncovered and he is certain the deal is in the best interest of the city – not the developers – he “would not support this project and or lease.”
Messenger is a ‘Definite’ No
Julie Messenger, who represents Ward 6, says she has no desire to enter into a lease agreement with OHOS for the garage.
“I would definitely not support leasing the parking garage,” she stated. “To be frank, if we were making the decision today I would rather not be involved at all.”
Messenger said not owning the garage could lead to a liability, adding, “The only thing that could be palatable is ownership of the garage and definitely not to lease.”
Stennis: ‘Sounds Like Funds Were Gotten Illegally’
Ward 2 Alderman Karen Stennis said she wants to know how the application asked for one thing and then the result was another. She discounted Harris’s claim the ownership language was just a sales pitch, characterizing that as “hard to believe.”
“I believe that MDA goes by what is in the application and the application said upon completing the garage that it was going to be turned over to the city – and it hasn’t,” Stennis said of the claims made by OHOS to grant-makers. “I mean to me it sounds like funds were gotten illegally.”
Pfeiffer Wants ‘Clear Answers’
Alderman Shannon Pfeiffer, representing Ward 4, says she has been doing her own extensive research and expects the other aldermen are doing the same. She pointed out that as recently as August 2024, the city represented to MDA that OHOS would transfer ownership of the garage to the city as soon as construction was complete.
Pfeiffer was referring to a clause in the final MDA agreements that forced the city to certify the representations made in the grant applications were “true and correct” on the day the applications were submitted and remain that way on the day final agreements are signed.
She finished by saying, “I’d like to get a clear answer.”
A Looming Deadline
When Mayor Bobby Cox asked if any other members of the Board had anything to add, Ward 3 Alderman Kevin Wade and Ward 5 Alderman Rob Blackman both declined to comment. Their silence stood in contrast to the concerns raised by the rest of the Board.
At the same time, the Mississippi Development Authority has told city officials they must sign a long-term lease by June 30 or risk repaying the $8 million in grant funds.
But the grant agreements themselves — if valid — set only two performance requirements: that construction be completed by June 30 and that the parking garage be open to the public by that same date. The agreements contain no requirement that the city enter into a lease, despite MDA’s position outlined in a recent letter to officials.
Taken together, the record now shows three things:
- The law requires contract details to be approved by the Board and recorded in the minutes.
- The city’s own records show that did not happen.
- And multiple elected officials say the project was presented as something very different than what exists today.
What remains unanswered is how those three facts can coexist — and what, if anything, the city intends to do about it.
The Mayor and BOA members that were present, need to tell their story.
Citizens shouldn’t be on the hook for this fraudulent deal.