City Falsifies Second Crucial Document in Growing Parking Garage Scandal

City Clerk’s Office altered official record to show approval of contract that didn’t exist.

OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) – The Ocean Springs City Clerk’s Office has altered the official minutes of a four-year-old Board of Aldermen meeting, creating a record that shows the Board approved a contract that did not exist at the time. This altered timeline, which represents actions not possible, has a significant effect on the public.

The May 17, 2022 minutes were approved by the Board on June 7, 2022. But the version now being presented to the public includes authorization for an agreement dated July 2023 — more than a year later.

The revised record is now being cited to justify a controversial outcome: allowing a private developer to retain ownership of a publicly funded $8 million parking garage, rather than transferring it to the city as originally represented to state authorities in grant applications.

Mississippi law treats official records as the legal historical record of government action once they are approved. Altering them after the fact raises serious legal questions — including potential felony exposure.

This latest incident marks at least the second time official documents related to the downtown parking garage were altered when presented to the public or to the Board of Aldermen.

The Undisputed Timeline

In 2019, the city partnered with OHOS Development LLC to seek $8 million in grant funding from the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) to construct a downtown parking garage.

Both applications represented that the completed garage would be owned by the City of Ocean Springs.

However, in 2021, newly elected Mayor Kenny Holloway informed the Board that the structure of the deal had been “reworked.” Under the revised arrangement, OHOS would retain ownership of the garage, and the city would lease it, assuming the associated costs. The proposal was presented by OHOS attorney Erich Nichols.

The Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a non-binding framework outlining the intent to negotiate a lease at a later date.

There is no indication in the record that the MDA was notified of this change in ownership structure at that time.

In May 2022, Mayor Holloway advised the Board that the grants had been approved and that he had received the formal agreement from the state.

That agreement included a key certification: that the statements made in the grant applications — including that the city would own the garage — were “true and correct” both when submitted and at the time of execution.

Another provision, Section 6-f, required compliance with the terms outlined in Annex A, which contained the grant’s conditions.

City officials would later assert that the Board approved a version of the agreement incorporating additional annexes, including one tied to the lease structure. History does not support that claim.

On June 7, 2022, the Board approved the minutes of the May 17 meeting. At that point, those minutes became the official record.

That record has since changed.

What the Records Show Now

Through a public records request, GC Wire asked for documentation reflecting each instance in which the Board approved an MDA agreement related to the project.

After several back and forth emails, the City Clerk’s Office eventually identified only one such action:  the May 17, 2022 approval of the original agreement. No subsequent amended versions were approved by the Board, according to the city’s response. Archive searches by GC Wire resulted in the same conclusion – the Board only approved the original version of the MDA contract.

But the documents provided in response to that request introduced a contradiction.

The City Clerk provided the official minutes of that meeting via email, signing the correspondence as “City Clerk’s Office.” The contract attached to those May 2022 minutes had the cover page from a 2022 MDA contract, but the inner pages from a July 2023 “Amended and Restated Grant Agreement” — a document that did not exist at the time of the Board’s vote and was never approved by the Board.

In effect, the historical record now reflects approval of an agreement written one year in the future.

The version of the contract now claimed to be approved in May 2022 shows Section 6-f to incorporate additional annexes — including Annex B, which outlines a lease arrangement under which OHOS retains ownership of the garage.

The original agreement approved in 2022 did not include those provisions. In fact, it invoked and relied upon on the statements made in the grant application, specifically that the city would be the owner of the garage.

A second public records request from another resident produced the same results: an altered May 17, 2022 set of official minutes, containing an attachment of a contract that did not exist until a year later.

The Implication

Multiple versions of the agreement were created after the initial approval. Mayor Holloway later certified that those versions had been approved by the Board.

The record shows otherwise.

Only one version — the original 2022 agreement — received Board approval.

The rest did not.

And yet, the official minutes now reflect something different.

Mississippi law states the official minutes record is the only thing that matters in court. In this case, the city changed those minutes to suit a preferred outcome.

What State Law Says About Altering Public Records

Mississippi law does not treat government records as flexible documents.

Once approved, minutes become the official legal record of what a public body did. Changing that record after the fact is not a clerical issue — it can carry criminal consequences.

Under Mississippi law, knowingly making a false entry in a public record or altering a government document can fall under multiple criminal statutes.

State statutes specifically makes it a crime to “wittingly make any false entry” in a record belonging to any court or public office. A violation can be prosecuted as a felony, carrying potential penalties that include fines and imprisonment.

Additionally, the law prohibits the falsification or alteration of records with the intent to defraud or mislead. Convictions under this statute can also result in felony charges, with penalties that may include significant fines and prison time of up to ten years.

Taken together, these laws reflect a simple principle:  public records must accurately reflect what happened. They cannot be rewritten later to justify decisions that were never approved.

Here, the official minutes now reflect approval of a contract that did not exist at the time of the vote.

If proven in a court of law, that is not a technical violation. It is the kind of conduct these statutes are designed to prevent.

Not the First Altered Document

The May 2022 minutes are not the first time altered documents have surfaced in the parking garage project.

In October 2025, members of a newly elected Board of Aldermen were presented with what they were told was the same MOU approved in August 2021 — the letter-of-intent outlining the basic terms of the garage deal.

It was not the same document.

The version provided to aldermen included language that did not exist in the original agreement.

Specifically, a key provision had been rewritten. The original MOU required the City to maintain the public portion of the garage. The version presented years later added a new obligation: requiring the City to provide both maintenance and insurance — a potentially significant ongoing cost to taxpayers.

That language was never approved by the Board, yet it was used as the basis to build a proposed lease agreement presented to the Board that same day.

The version presented to the Board in October contained a re-written first page, attached to the original signature page of the 2021 document – creating the appearance that it was the official document approved by the Board six years prior.

City Attorney David Harris later acknowledged the discrepancy in a confidential November 2025 memorandum to aldermen.

He wrote that the document used to evaluate the lease “is different than the August 17, 2021 MOU,” noting that the added insurance requirement “does not appear in the MOU contained in the minutes.”

He further acknowledged that the origin of the altered language was unknown.

“Why the language is different has yet to be determined,” Harris wrote.

The memo also makes clear that, under Mississippi law, the controlling version of any agreement is the one reflected in the official minutes — not later versions that circulate outside the public record.

In other words, the only MOU that legally exists is the one the Board actually approved in 2021.

Why This Matters Now

The similarities between the two situations are difficult to ignore.

In 2025, aldermen were presented with a modified version of a previously approved agreement — one that added new financial obligations the Board had never approved.

Now, in 2026, the official minutes themselves reflect approval of a contract that did not exist at the time – one that justifies changing the state funded parking garage ownership to a private company, rather than the city.

Both instances involve the same project. Both involve documents that do not match the official record. And both were used in connection with decisions involving millions in public funds.

Last month, State Auditor Shad White wrote in a report that there was “confusion” as to who should own the Ocean Springs parking garage.

Earlier this month, Governor Tate Reeves vetoed an approved $1.5 million state grant for Ocean Springs to move its Public Works facility. As of publication, the governor’s office has not responded to questions as to whether the veto was related to the current parking garage issue.

Ocean Springs officials have yet to clarify why the historical records no longer match the actual actions of the Board or why former Mayor Holloway signed agreements that were never approved by the Board.

See for Yourself

Here are links to a list of parking garage related documents under scrutiny:

The original 2019 MOU – This is the letter-of-intent styled agreement that originally changed the structure from the city owning the garage to the city leasing the garage.

The Altered 2019 MOU – This is the version of the that same document that altered one line. In the original document, there was a bullet statement that read: “The City agrees to maintain the public portion of the parking garage.” The altered version presented to the Board of Aldermen in 2025 changed that line to read: “The City to provide insurance and maintenance for the public portion of the parking garage.”

May 17, 2022 Board of Aldermen Meeting Minutes – This document is found in the archives of the city’s website. It contains language that the mayor received the MDA agreement and that the agreement was approved by the Board that day.

May 17, 2022 Minutes with Attachments – This is the official complete minutes that includes all the attached contracts and documents approved by the Board that day. On Page 191, is the cover page of the original 2022 MDA “Grant Agreement.” The subsequent pages are a different agreement: “Amended and Restated Grant Agreement” dated July 2023, which did not yet exist in May 2022, yet the city now claims it was approved one year before it was created. (In plain terms, it combines the two documents below into one document.)

Original MDA Grant Agreement Approved by the Board – This is the 2022 agreement that was approved by the Board of Aldermen.

Amended and Restated Grant Agreement – This is the 2023 agreement signed by the mayor without authorization from the Board of Aldermen.

In the May 17, 2022 minutes, the City Clerk attached the cover sheet of the 2022 Grant Agreement, but inserts the pages of the 2023 Amended and Restated Grant Agreement, the one the Board never approved.