Vermilion residents sue over meetings tied to SpaceX tax agreement

AI-assisted editorial illustration by Vermilion Boom: an imagined public-meeting setting.

A Vermilion Parish citizens’ group and three residents filed a petition Oct. 26 against the Vermilion Parish Police Jury and the Vermilion Parish Industrial Development Board, according to reporting by Gulf States Newsroom and The Current. The petition alleges eight violations of Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law during public actions connected to SpaceX’s proposed Pecan Island spaceport.

The petition asks the court to declare the eight violations, void the industrial board’s Aug. 25 actions, award damages related to that meeting, and award costs and attorney fees. The PILOT agreement is a payment arrangement in which a company makes scheduled payments instead of some property taxes. A court order under Louisiana Revised Statute 42:24 would be required to void the Aug. 25 actions.

The plaintiffs are the Vermilion Citizens Coalition, Dr. Robert J. Young III, Rebecca C. Young and Cheryl Choate. The defendants are the industrial development board and the Police Jury. SpaceX is not named as a defendant.

What the meeting records show

The petition identifies four meetings and eight alleged violations. For the Police Jury, plaintiffs say the July 15 agenda amendment added an industrial-board matter as a subterfuge to avoid public input; the jury considered an ExxonMobil settlement without an agenda item; and the meeting was not broadcast live. The petition also challenges the Police Jury’s appointment of John McClain to the industrial board and alleges that the related meeting was not broadcast live. (Petition, pp. 10–11.)

The July 15 agenda did not expressly name the industrial development board or ExxonMobil. It listed an executive session and possible resolution concerning Gulfport Energy litigation and “Vermilion Parish Litigation.” The signed minutes record a unanimous motion to amend the agenda to discuss a board, followed by unanimous acceptance of seven industrial-board members. Later, under Police Juror Business, the minutes record unanimous approval of a settlement releasing claims against Exxon Mobil and successor owners and authorization for the president to sign it. (Agenda, p. 2; minutes, pp. 13–14.)

Gulf States Newsroom, in a report published by Louisiana Illuminator, reported the governor’s office’s account of the July 15 meeting: executive counsel attended, the ExxonMobil settlement was discussed in executive session and approved afterward in open session, and parish attorneys have a copy of the settlement. The office also said courts in the 24th and 25th Judicial Districts ordered settlement documents kept confidential.

The signed minutes show the final ExxonMobil vote in regular session. The petition challenges the agenda amendment, the public description of the settlement and compliance with the broadcast requirement.

The petition dates the Police Jury’s later action Aug. 18 in its list of alleged violations and describes the meeting as Aug. 19 in its factual narrative. The official Aug. 19 agenda was posted Aug. 18 at 2:30 p.m. and did not list an industrial-board appointment. The signed Aug. 19 minutes record a unanimous appointment of John McClain to replace Kevin Sagrera, who the minutes describe as ineligible to serve. The official record identifies the meeting date as Aug. 19; the petition’s Aug. 18 wording is a pleading discrepancy. (Petition, p. 10; Aug. 19 agenda, pp. 1–2; minutes, p. 12.)

The industrial board’s notices and tax agreement

The remaining allegations concern the industrial board. The petition says the board failed to send required meeting notices to the state commissioner of administration for its July 23 and Aug. 25 meetings. It also says the Aug. 25 agenda used “Project Osprey,” described in the petition as a code name for the SpaceX project, instead of identifying the subject more clearly. (Petition, pp. 8–11.)

At the Aug. 25 meeting, the industrial board approved a SpaceX-related PILOT agreement, according to Louisiana Illuminator. The request to void board action concerns that meeting. (Petition, p. 11.)

The petition copy has blank case-number and division fields and no filing stamp. This report therefore gives no docket number, assigned judge, service, hearing date or current ruling status.