Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nicholls Stadium Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parish Council rejects $250,000 suite remodel request for Nicholls State stadium
Summary
Lafourche Parish Council voted to deny a $250,000 parish contribution for suite remediation at John L. Guidry Stadium after several members said the city and university should contribute; the motion failed 5–2 with one abstention and one absence.
Get email alerts on the Nicholls Stadium Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lafourche Parish Council on Sept. 23 declined a request to approve a $250,000 parish contribution for a suite‑remodel and remediation at John L. Guidry Stadium. The resolution, presented by Councilman Aaron Melvin on behalf of administration, failed after a heated discussion over who should bear the cost.
Councilman Daniel Lorraine argued that the city of Thibodaux should pay, noting previous parish investments in nearby roads and saying Thibodaux benefited from that work: “In all fairness, why don't they pay out $250,000?” he said during discussion. Council members who opposed the measure cited parish needs for infrastructure and hurricane recovery, with one member noting dozens of houses in his district still need demolition after Hurricane Ida.
Melvin, who represents District 4 and introduced the item, defended the request as a worthwhile contribution to a local higher‑education institution that benefits the parish: he said the city and campus already are investing in drainage and paving around the stadium. Parish President Mitch (identified in the agenda as the parish president) reiterated that the ask followed previous conversations with the university and previous parish administrations.
When put to a voice/hand vote, the council recorded 2 yeas (Councilman Perk and Councilman Melvin), 5 nays (Councilman Lorraine, Councilwoman Cheson, Councilman Araby, Councilman Pearson and Councilman Otan), 1 abstention (Councilman Adams) and 1 absence (Councilman Brumfield). The motion therefore failed.
The measure had been deferred at a prior meeting and returned to the council for consideration; no alternative funding source was approved at the meeting. The council did not adopt a substitute motion or set a new date for reconsideration by the end of the session.

