New Evidence Shows Official Parking Garage Record Was Altered After Board Approval

Newly obtained recording and side-by-side exhibit review suggest the historical record was altered, debunking the City’s official explanation.

OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) – A newly obtained recording 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.

This is important because 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 officials’ explanations that on the night in question, the Board voted to approve agreements that would be drafted more than a year later – not agreements the Board had in hand. Only Aldermen Karen Stennis and Shannon Pfeiffer voted to make the correction.

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.

When the official minutes from the May 17, 2022 meeting were approved at the following meeting, evidence suggests the original agreements were properly attached. Sometime between then and 2026, those agreements were swapped out with versions never approved by the Board of Aldermen.

Listen to 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 said he reviewed the agreements then advised the Board to approve execution.

Holloway then told the Board:

“We need a motion to execute that agreement with MDA.”

A motion was made to approve those reviewed contracts. The Board voted unanimously to execute them.

Listen to the Vote:

.

The City Attorney stated that he reviewed the agreements. The Board approved the same agreements that were in front of them at the time.

Not future agreements that have not yet been created.

Not amended agreements created a year later, as the City now claims.

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 (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
• the later 2023 amended agreements (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
• and the exhibits currently attached to the official minutes (beginning on page 191)

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:

Original 2022 Phase 1 Agreement

The original Phase 1 agreement approved by the Board in May 2022 began with a cover page titling the document as “Grant Agreement.” The following page begins by matching that title, calling it “The Grant Agreement,” and showing a draft date of January 27, 2022.

July 2023 Phase 1 Agreement

More than a year later, a different agreement was created titled “Amended and Restated Grant Agreement.” The following page begins by matching that title, calling it “The Amended and Restated Grant Agreement,” and showing a draft date of July 1, 2023.

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. This suggests whomever swapped the original agreements for the later versions forgot to change the cover page.

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

Last month, the City claimed the May 17, 2022 approval was for future documents. Last week, City Attorney David Harris gave an alternative explanation. He said the original agreement was never “activated,” so that justifies the changing of the historical record. But that is not how government works.

In May 2022, the Board approved a set of contracts. Those contracts were signed and notarized by all parties several weeks later. If a new amended version was later needed, the Board would have to vote to authorize the execution of the new versions.

That never happened.

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.