Mayor Pulls Bait and Switch on Aldermen in Secret Parking Garage Deal

(GC Wire runs on donations by residents like you. Please click to help us keep reporting.)

OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC WIRE) – Minutes after unanimously voting in open session to hold a workshop and review a proposed parking garage lease, Ocean Springs aldermen were taken into executive session and told the agreement had already been sent to the developer — then urged to make a decision on the spot.

At issue was a proposed lease agreement between the City of Ocean Springs and OHOS Development for a publicly funded parking garage tied to the OS1515 hotel project. The City and its private partner secured roughly $8 million in Gulf Coast Restoration Fund money to build the garage, with a June 30 deadline tied to completing the project and opening it to the public.

In the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s meeting, aldermen had been grappling with fundamental questions:

• whether the City is actually required to enter into a lease,
• whether the City should own the garage as represented in multiple grant applications, and
• whether the grant agreements underpinning the project were ever authorized by the Board in the first place.

According to multiple aldermen present, the urgency escalated quickly behind closed doors. At one point, a warning was given that state officials could pursue legal action against individual board members depending on how they voted – a warning that was not accompanied by any reference to supporting statutes or case law.

Cox Withheld Key Information from the Board and Public

Before the Board entered the private executive session, the discussion in open session pointed toward answering those looming questions.

Alderman Shannon Pfeiffer raised concerns about the approaching June 30 deadline tied to the parking garage and warned against making a rushed decision. With only a handful of meetings remaining, she urged the Board to get ahead of the issue and fully understand the agreements involved.

Pfeiffer made a motion to schedule a workshop session where aldermen could review all relevant documents, clarify the City’s obligations, and determine a path forward without last-minute pressure. She also suggested bringing in an outside attorney with expertise in the area to ensure the Board had a clear and independent understanding of what it was being asked to approve.

Mayor Bobby Cox pushed back, questioning whether the 11 weeks before the deadline would be enough time to hold a work session, gather answers, and reach a decision before the deadline. Pfeiffer rejected that premise, emphasizing the financial stakes and the Board’s responsibility to conduct proper due diligence on what she described as an $8 million matter.

Despite the mayor’s concerns, the Board voted unanimously to move forward with the workshop. A date was set for the following week, April 15, with the expectation that the lease and all related documents would be reviewed in full before any decision was made.

At no point in that public discussion did Cox disclose to the aldermen or residents that a lease agreement had already been drafted and sent to the developer. The Board would learn that in executive session minutes later.

Behind Closed Doors: A Decision Already in Motion

According to multiple aldermen present, the tone changed immediately once the Board entered the private executive session.

City Attorney David Harris began by stating that the lease agreement had already been sent to the developer and that “it’s time to make a decision.” He warned that failure to execute a lease by June 30 could place the City in default under the grant, potentially triggering repayment of funds, litigation, and loss of any rights to the parking garage.

Aldermen who had just voted to delay the decision attempted to stop the discussion. Pfeiffer objected, noting that moments earlier the Board had already approved a workshop and questioning why they were moving forward before that review could take place.

The discussion continued anyway.

At one point, aldermen report they were even warned by a fellow Board member that state officials could go after members individually if they lean a certain way, suggesting personal exposure depending on how they voted.

Aldermen Barred from Getting Second Opinions

Aldermen said they were not provided copies of the lease to review outside the room. Harris indicated the documents would need to be returned before they left, offering instead to walk through the agreement section by section.

That limitation stood in contrast to his earlier statement that the lease had already been transmitted to the developer, a private company with no restrictions on how the document could be shared.

OHOS was free to have outside experts review the contract, but aldermen making high-cost decisions involving taxpayer money could not. Instead, they were pressured to vote without the opportunity for consultation or outside review.

Without access to the lease agreement sent to OHOS, aldermen will have no way of verifying if any lease agreement signed later is the same as the one they were being asked to vote on that night.

According to the Mississippi Public Records Act, the draft agreement sent to the developers should be available for public review. A public records request made by GC Wire for the document has yet to be answered.

Questionable Agreements

Former Mayor Kenny Holloway signed two grant agreements with the state on behalf of the city, one for each of the two phases of funds used to build the parking garage. But was he authorized to do so?

Aldermen reported Harris told them that a 2021 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with OHOS Development authorized the City to execute all paperwork required for the grant and that this authority carried forward.

However, the MOU approved by the previous Board does not contain that language.

Instead, it outlines general lease concepts and explicitly describes the arrangement as the product of preliminary negotiations rather than a binding commitment. It does not delegate ongoing authority to execute future agreements.

Harris also referred to a 2019 resolution passed by the Board that he said authorized the mayor to sign the MDA agreements. But that resolution merely authorized the city to be a co-applicant to request funding. It contained none of the language to authorize the mayor to sign final grant agreements created years later.

These are the same two documents the City Clerk provided to GC Wire when a public records request was made asking for: “Any resolution, motion, or vote of the Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen authorizing the Mayor and/or City Clerk to execute the GCRF grant agreement for the 1515 Government Street project.”

No minutes actually authorizing the execution of the grant agreements were given.

In a November memo handed out to the Board, Harris informed the aldermen of the state’s “Minute Rule,” which states if the details of an agreement do not appear in the city’s official minutes along with a vote to approve them, the city cannot be held to the terms of that agreement.

He then confirmed that the previous Board had never approved the terms of either grant agreement or authorized then-Mayor Kenny Holloway to sign – making those agreements unenforceable under his own legal theory.

But Tuesday, Harris changed direction, sarcastically telling aldermen they could use that excuse years from now in a Supreme Court appeal, before telling them they’d be the first city to be sued under the GCRF grant program if they did not approve the lease and offering a snarky congratulations.

The contradicting legal theories exposed the uncertainty surrounding the city’s legal position – and further demonstrated a need for expert consultation – even as a decision was being pushed forward.

Another Bait and Switch

It remains unclear whether one of the most significant questions was addressed before the vote.

Both agreements include a certification that all material information submitted in the applications was “true and correct” at the time of submission and at the time the agreements were signed. The agreements further acknowledge that the Mississippi Development Authority relied on those representations in awarding the grants.

Those applications described the project with the understanding that the City would own the parking garage upon completion.

That ownership representation was not framed as preliminary — it was presented as a factual component of the project and certified twice in executed agreements by both the city and OHOS.

While both grant agreements have the 2021 lease MOU attached as an annex, only one references the document. Both agreements, however, include the certification language regarding the accuracy of the applications – the same applications that specifically state the city would own the garage.

Vote Taken Behind Closed Doors

After approximately one hour behind closed doors, the Board reconvened in the public forum. The City Clerk returned to announce the Board had voted on a motion to accept the parking garage lease and authorize the mayor to sign it. The announcement was made to a roomful of empty chairs and the YouTube live stream already turned off.

The motion passed 4–3 behind closed doors.

Voting in favor were Aldermen Tillis, Wade, Blackman, and Hinton. Voting against were Aldermen Stennis, Pfeiffer, and Messenger.

A Decision Made Before the Review

The sequence is clear.

The City had weeks before the June 30 deadline to review the lease, hold a workshop, and seek outside legal guidance.

In open session, the Board voted unanimously to do exactly that.

Minutes later, in executive session, aldermen were told the lease had already been sent to the developer, warned of legal and financial consequences—including potential personal exposure—and asked to vote that night.

The questions aldermen sought to answer in a public workshop — about ownership, legal authority, conflicting documents, and the City’s obligations — were not resolved during that discussion.

The vote came anyway.

The workshop remains scheduled for next week. No explanation was given as to how that workshop would address issues that had already been decided.