OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) – A newly obtained transcript and side-by-side review of official parking garage records directly contradicts the City of Ocean Springs’ explanation for disputed grant agreements tied to the city’s $8 million downtown parking garage project.
The new evidence reveals the official minutes from a May 2022 Board of Aldermen meeting originally contained the correct agreements.
Those exhibits were later altered, replacing the approved contracts with amended versions created more than a year later.
The agreements originally approved suggest City taxpayers should own the publicly funded parking garage, while the replaced contracts indicate it should be owned by a private company and leased to the City.
Last Tuesday, the Board voted against correcting the official record, accepting City Attorney David Harris’s explanation that the later agreements had been properly added into the minutes packet after they were drafted and signed more than a year later.
But new evidence reviewed by GC Wire shows otherwise. The Board had the original documents in hand and those were the documents approved that night. Those same contracts were signed and notarized by all parties within weeks – not a year later.
What the Board Actually Approved
While City officials continue to argue the Board voted to approve future contracts, the transcript dramatically narrows what the aldermen actually authorized on May 17, 2022.
During the meeting, Mayor Kenny Holloway informed the Board that the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) was prepared to fund the downtown parking garage project.
City Attorney Robert Wilkinson then advised the Board to approve execution of “that agreement.”
Holloway then told the Board:
“We need a motion to execute that agreement with MDA.”
Alderman Mike Impey made the motion, seconded by Rob Blackman.
The Exchange Verbatim:
Mayor Kenny Holloway: You all received a letter from MDA that it’s ready to fund the parking garage downtown so if anybody had any questions before the execution of that…
City Attorney Robert Wilkinson: Mayor I reviewed it and it’s been a work in progress but from the city’s standpoint I certainly would approve.
Mayor: Do we need a motion on that?
Wilkinson: Yes sir.
Mayor: We need a motion to execute that agreement with MDA.
Alderman Mike Impey: I make a motion that we execute the agreement with MDA
Wilkinson: Mayor, actually it’s the MDA and the Gulf Coast Restoration Fund
Impey: I amend my motion to include the Gulf Coast Restoration Fund.
Alderman Rob Blackman: Second.
Mayor: All in favor?
Board: (unanimous) Aye
Mayor: Motion carries.
Nothing in the discussion referenced future amended agreements, future lease structures, or blanket authorization for rewritten contracts. The transcript repeatedly refers to physical documents before the Board that night.
Not future agreements.
Not amended agreements.
LISTEN TO THE EXCHANGE HERE:
(audio file)
The Cover Page Problem
The transcript alone creates major problems for the City’s explanation. But the exhibits themselves create an even larger one.
GC Wire reviewed:
- the original 2022 agreements
- the later 2023 amended agreements
- and the exhibits currently attached to the official minutes
The comparison revealed something striking.
One of the exhibits currently attached to the official record contains the cover page from the original 2022 “Grant Agreement,” followed by pages from a separately titled “Amended and Restated Grant Agreement” dated July 2023.
In other words, the exhibit currently attached to the official minutes is not:
- the original 2022 agreement
- or the complete 2023 amended agreement
It is a combination of both.
That hybrid document did not exist when the Board voted in May 2022.
And according to the newly obtained transcript, it was not the agreement discussed or approved that night.
See for yourself
Image 1 – Original 2022 Agreement
The original agreement approved by the Board in May 2022 began with a cover page titling the document as “Grant Agreement.” The following page begins by echoing that title, calling it “The Grant Agreement,” and showing a draft date of January 27, 2022.
Image 2 – July 2023 Agreement
More than a year later, a different agreement was created titled “Amended and Restated Grant Agreement.” The following page begins by echoing that title, calling it “The Amended and Restated Grant Agreement,” and showing a draft date of July 1, 2023.
Image 3 – Current Exhibit Attached to Minutes
The exhibit currently attached to the official minutes combines the original 2022 “Grant Agreement” cover page with pages from the later 2023 amended version.
The Impossible Timeline
The timeline below shows the sequence of events surrounding the original grant agreements and the later amended versions. The Board approved the original agreements in May 2022, and those agreements were executed by all parties within weeks. The “Amended and Restated” agreements were not created until July 2023 — more than a year after the Board vote and after the original contracts had already been signed and notarized.
The City currently argues the 2023 agreements were the set of documents reviewed and approved by the Board in 2022, even though they weren’t created yet.
The Unanswered Question
The evidence now raises a question city officials have yet to answer:
Who changed the exhibit attached to the official minutes?
The Board approved a specific “Grant Agreement” in May 2022. Those agreements were later executed and notarized by all parties in August 2022. Yet the exhibit currently attached to the official record now contains pages from a different “Amended and Restated” agreement created in July 2023.
At some point, the original exhibit was changed.
The newly obtained transcript, the executed agreements, and the side-by-side document comparisons leave little room for dispute on that point.
What remains unknown is:
- when the replacement occurred
- who authorized it
- and why the official record was changed after the fact
And now that the Board has voted against correcting the record, those questions are unlikely to disappear.
