City Attorney Acknowledges Missing Security Cameras, Mayor Defends Questionable Maintenance Costs, and Separate $4,000 Payment Raises New Questions About Financial Oversight
OCEAN SPRINGS, MS – The City of Ocean Springs has verified GC Wire reports that the city has sent thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds to owners of the downtown parking garage for services the city was not receiving. But not all of the aldermen want the phantom payments corrected.
During last Tuesday’s Board of Aldermen meeting, City Attorney David Harris acknowledged that the city had contacted OHOS Development, LLC, the owners of the downtown parking garage, regarding security camera services the city had been paying for but was not receiving.
The acknowledgment came after an October 7 GC Wire investigation revealed that the city had paid OHOS thousands in monthly payments for a security camera system that did not exist.
The investigation also questioned $2,240 in monthly maintenance payments, including a financial justification based partly on mechanical street sweeping that the garage owners were not performing.
In total, the city had paid OHOS $11,600 in security and maintenance fees over the first four months of the agreement.
Rather than dispute the missing security cameras, Harris told aldermen he had already contacted the garage owners.
“I’ve already notified OHOS regarding the camera issue,” Harris said, explaining that he had sent the notification six days earlier, following GC Wire’s report. “And we’re working through that issue.”
Alderman Steve Tillis asked whether OHOS had assured Harris that the problem would be corrected.
“I don’t know if assurance is the word I would use, but I have told them,” Harris responded.
For Alderman Karen Stennis, the informal communication was not enough.
She wanted the city to invoke the formal cure provisions already written into its agreement with OHOS.
But her efforts to enforce the contract and recover taxpayer money encountered opposition from two aldermen who had supported the original lease.
Two Motions to Protect Taxpayer Funds, Two Divided Votes
Stennis initially sought to address both the missing security cameras and the disputed maintenance services under the city’s agreement with OHOS.
Following a contentious discussion over whether the garage owners were required to perform mechanical street sweeping, the motion focused on the security camera deficiency.
Stennis moved to formally notify OHOS that it was in default of its contractual obligations, giving the company 30 days to correct the problem.
The motion followed the procedure outlined in Section 9 of the lease, which requires written notice identifying a default and provides the responsible party 30 days to cure it.
If the deficiency is not corrected, the agreement allows the non-defaulting party to terminate the lease and pursue other available legal remedies.
Harris had already sent an informal email to OHOS, but Stennis wanted an official notice pursuant to the agreement.
The distinction was significant. A formal notice would establish the contractual deadline for OHOS to correct the deficiency and preserve the city’s ability to pursue the remedies outlined in the lease.
The motion passed, but not unanimously.
Aldermen Kevin Wade and Rob Blackman voted against it.
Stennis then introduced a second motion directing the City Clerk and City Attorney to determine the amount of money the city had paid OHOS for security camera services that were not provided and pursue reimbursement.
Again, the motion encountered resistance.
Wade voted against the effort to recover the funds.
Blackman declined to cast a vote.
“I’m not voting,” Blackman stated.
The two motions addressed different problems. The first sought to ensure OHOS fulfilled its contractual obligations going forward. The second sought to recover taxpayer money already paid for services the city had not received.
Both motions passed, but neither received unanimous support.
A Street Sweeper That Couldn’t Fit
The meeting also produced a heated exchange over another questionable expense uncovered in GC Wire’s original investigation.
The city’s lease includes a $1,500 monthly estimate for mechanical street sweeping as part of the financial justification for paying OHOS $2,240 per month to maintain the garage.
When Stennis questioned the expense, Mayor Bobby Cox defended the calculation.
“That’s if we were to do it all,” Cox said. “That’s what it would have cost us because we would have used a street sweeper.”
There’s just one problem. The estimate used to justify monthly payments made to OHOS was likely a false narrative.
GC Wire’s research found that the city’s street sweeper is too large to operate inside the garage. Even if it could, operating heavy municipal sweeping equipment around parked vehicles in an enclosed structure raises serious safety concerns.
Schwarze Industries, a manufacturer of commercial street sweepers, specifically warns against operating engines in buildings without adequate exhaust ventilation. Its safety guidance also identifies overhead clearance, limited visibility, and the risk of injury or property damage when maneuvering the equipment.
In other words, the city used the estimated cost of a cleaning operation it could not realistically perform to justify payments to a private company.
Blackman disputed Stennis’s assertion that the maintenance payment included street sweeping.
“It did not. I mean, it’s plain as day,” Blackman responded. “Everything on that exhibit is what it would have cost us if we were doing it.”
Harris agreed, insisting the contract did not require OHOS to operate a street sweeper.
“Exhibit B is attached to show how you got to your negotiated number,” Harris said. “There’s no obligation for the use of the street sweeper.”
But Exhibit B expressly includes $1,500 per month for weekly mechanical street sweeping in the city’s estimated maintenance costs, and Section 6.1 ties the $2,240 monthly payment to those calculations.
Whether OHOS was contractually required to use a street sweeper was never the central issue.
The issue was that the city used $18,000 in annual expenses for an operation it could not realistically perform to help justify the financial terms of the agreement.
And that was the calculation city officials defended.
Another $4,000 Payment, But No Board Approval
In Ocean Springs, City Hall cannot simply write checks and spend taxpayer money at will.
Municipal expenditures are subject to approval by the elected Board of Aldermen through a process known as the docket of claims.
Whether the city is paying a utility bill, purchasing equipment, or sending thousands of dollars to a private contractor, the docket provides a public record of the expenditures presented to the Board for approval.
The process is fundamental to financial accountability. It allows aldermen to review what the city is spending, ensures expenditures are subject to elected oversight, and creates an official record against which the city’s finances can be reconciled.
But GC Wire has uncovered a $4,000 payment to OHOS Development, LLC, that appears to have bypassed that process entirely.
According to the city’s Vendor History Report, Ocean Springs issued a $4,000 payment to the garage owners on September 3, 2026, under payment number 137296.
The payment was one of the regular monthly payments required under the garage lease.
But there was something unusual about this particular transaction.
GC Wire examined seven Board of Aldermen dockets of claims, spanning July 7 through October 6, and compared them against the city’s official vendor payment history for OHOS.
Every other payment in that history could be matched to a corresponding claim presented to the Board.
The September 3 payment was the only exception.
To determine how the payment was authorized, GC Wire submitted a formal public records request seeking documentation of the Board’s approval.
The request went further. It also sought any policy, resolution, Board order, or legal determination allowing the administration to make recurring lease payments or other contractual expenditures without individual approval through the docket-of-claims process.
The city could produce none.
“After a thorough search of our records, there is no responsive document to your request below,” City Hall responded.
The finding raises questions that go far beyond a single $4,000 payment.
The money was disbursed and recorded in the city’s vendor history, but there is no corresponding record of the Board approving the expenditure.
Payments that do not appear on the approved docket of claims also create discrepancies between the expenditures aldermen authorize and the amounts actually disbursed by City Hall. Without a complete accounting, elected officials cannot reliably reconcile those totals.
And if the administration can issue a $4,000 payment without documented Board approval, what prevents other payments from being processed the same way?
How many other checks have been issued without appearing on a Board-approved docket of claims?
The September payment is recorded in the city’s accounting system. It was not invisible.
But it was missing from the records documenting the Board’s approval of expenditures.
And the city’s own response indicates it has no documentation explaining why.
Who Is Watching the Taxpayer Money?
The latest developments leave Ocean Springs taxpayers with several unanswered questions.
The city has acknowledged a problem involving security camera services for which it has been paying $660 every month.
Its officials have defended the use of a $1,500 monthly street-sweeping estimate in the financial justification for a maintenance agreement, even though GC Wire’s investigation indicates the equipment could not realistically be used inside the garage.
And the city has now acknowledged that it cannot produce a record of Board authorization for a separate $4,000 monthly lease payment to the same private company.
The Board of Aldermen is responsible for overseeing the expenditure of public funds.
Stennis’s motions sought to address two of the immediate issues: formally require OHOS to correct the security camera deficiency and determine how much taxpayer money should be recovered.
Both passed despite opposition.
The larger questions remain.
How much money has the city paid for services it did not receive? Will that money be returned? And how did a $4,000 payment proceed without a documented record of Board approval?
The original GC Wire investigation exposed the missing services.
The city’s own attorney has now acknowledged the security camera problem.
What happens next will determine whether the city merely recognizes the problem or actually recovers the taxpayer funds involved.
