Despite evidence, Mayor Cox and City Clerk Millard gave the public and Board a false and potentially costly timeline.
(GC Wire runs on donations by residents like you. Please click to help us keep reporting.)
OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) – The official record behind Ocean Springs’ $8 million downtown parking garage continues to contain the wrong contracts — a discrepancy that could determine who ultimately owns the structure.
When one alderman raised the issue, city officials said the record was correct.
It isn’t.
On Tuesday, Alderman Karen Stennis had one request: Fix the minutes.
Minutes are the official record of what occurred at a Board of Aldermen meeting. Under Mississippi law, the city speaks through its minutes, making their accuracy essential.
In this case, that accuracy could directly affect the city’s position on whether it has a legal right to own the downtown parking garage.
The Controversy, Explained Simply
On May 17, 2022, the Board voted to authorize the execution of state grant agreements that would fund the downtown parking garage. Those approved agreements were signed and notarized approximately 90 days later, in August 2022.
But the minutes packet for that meeting contains two different agreements — versions signed in July 2023 that were never approved by the Board.
What’s the difference?
Simple.
The agreements approved in 2022 point to the city owning the garage. The 2023 versions reflect a different structure — one where a private company owns the garage and the city leases it.
What Happened Tuesday
“We have some minutes from 2022 that have documents in there that are dated 2023,” Stennis said at Tuesday’s meeting. “It needs to be corrected. That’s what I’m asking for.”
Mayor Bobby Cox was one of the first to respond.
“Let’s let Christine address that real quick,” he said. “Obviously it wasn’t done in 2022. [The agreements are] stamped and notarized in 2023. So it wasn’t being hidden.”
But the agreements approved by the Board were executed in August 2022 — not 2023. The 2023 versions are amended agreements that were never approved by the Board.
“Let’s find out exactly what they found out, because they did research this after they were told,” Cox added, referring to the City Clerk’s Office.
City Clerk Christine Millard said she had researched the issue and attributed the discrepancy to how documents were added to minutes packets after execution.
“I went back and did a little bit of research,” she said. “Once the document was signed it was added to that packet… I don’t think there is anything nefarious going on here.”
Millard noted she was not the City Clerk at the time the agreements were executed.
However, records show the August 2022 agreements were known to the current City Clerk’s Office.
On November 13, 2025, Millard’s office responded to a GC Wire public records request by providing copies of the agreements signed and executed in August 2022 — the same agreements approved by the Board 90 days earlier.
Despite that fact, the city maintains the August 2022 contracts don’t exist.
They do.
Here is the contract for Phase 1 ($2,000,000 grant).
Here is the contract for Phase 2 ($6,000,000).
These are the same documents signed and notarized in August 2022. The same ones Millard’s office sent last November. But now, the Mayor and City Clerk say they never existed.
The controversy was first reported by GC Wire earlier this week, an article that sparked Tuesday’s controversial exchange at the City Hall. The same documents were attached to the that article.
We Let the Board Know
After Tuesday’s meeting, GC Wire sent an email to the Board and Mayor explaining the situation in the simplest of terms. The August 2022 grant agreements were attached.
Aldermen Karen Stennis and Shannon Pfeiffer responded.
“We were told one thing in that meeting, and the documents show something completely different,” Stennis stated. “That’s a problem that needs to be fixed.”
Pfeiffer pointed out the discrepancy had real world consequences.
“The Board relies on accurate information to make its decisions,” she said. “If the record doesn’t match what actually happened, and in this case it obviously does not, that needs to be addressed immediately.”
As of publication, Mayor Cox and none of the other Board members commented, even after receiving copies of the documents the city maintained did not exist at Tuesday’s meeting.
What Happens Now?
The only grant agreements approved by the Board of Aldermen are those executed in August 2022. City records show no later versions were ever presented to or approved by the Board.
At the same time, state officials have indicated the project must meet certain conditions — including execution of a lease agreement by June 30 — or risk potential clawback of $8 million in grant funds.
Those expectations appear to be based, at least in part, on later versions of the agreements that were never authorized by the Board.
If the May 17, 2022 minutes are corrected to reflect the agreements that were actually approved, it could directly affect how those state requirements are viewed.
For now, the question is whether the official record will be brought in line with what the Board actually approved — and what that may mean for the project moving forward.
