Commissioners question chamber sponsorship listing, seek clearer economic-development priorities

Navasota, Texas — Grimes County commissioners questioned whether the court had authorized the chamber to list the county as a "platinum" sponsor of the Navasota/Grimes County Chamber Awards Banquet and discussed how in-kind partnerships and free tickets to county employees had been handled.

Commissioner David Tullis placed the item on the agenda after finding a chamber publication listing the county as a platinum sponsor. He told the court he could not recall approving that level of sponsorship and asked the chamber to explain the publication.

Lucy Ibarra, executive director of the Navasota/Grimes County Chamber of Commerce, told the court the chamber had an "in-kind" partnership with the county that originated in 2024 and that the county provides a recurring economic development services grant (described to the court as $20,000 in prior budget conversations). She said the chamber considers county partnership a "level partnership" that can include advertising across multiple events and that, in the chamber’s published banquet sponsor levels, a platinum sponsor receives 10 tickets, pre/post-event recognition and a preferred table location.

Ibarra said the county’s in-kind contribution has included free use of the Grimes County Fairgrounds and that the fairgrounds’ use alone represents approximately $4,300 in value. She also said the chamber had not required the county to submit a guest list; instead, the chamber "checks off 10 attendees as they arrive and check-in for your table."

The court voiced two concerns: first, that the chamber’s public listing showing a dollar amount for "platinum" sponsorship could create the appearance the county spent taxpayer dollars for the sponsorship; and second, that county employees had sometimes attended chamber events at no cost without a transparent, court-approved policy about how those free tickets were allocated. Commissioner Tullis said he was not aware that free tickets were available in prior years and asked who had been selecting attendees.

In response, Ibarra said the chamber invited specific county officials in past years when they provided services at events (for example, the county judge serving as a live auctioneer, or the sheriff providing security for a banquet), and she said the practice predated her tenure as executive director.

The court and chamber discussed remedies. Commissioners suggested the chamber add an "in-kind sponsor" category to event materials to reduce public confusion about cash sponsorship amounts. Several commissioners also proposed making any complimentary tickets available on a transparent basis — for example, as employee recognitions distributed by department heads.

Commissioner Tullis also raised a related agenda item about compliance with the county’s economic development agreement with the chamber. He requested that the court place a discussion of formal economic development priorities on the next commissioners’ court agenda so the court can review obligations in the contract and identify two county liaisons to work with the chamber (the contract requires designation of a county judge and another commissioner as liaisons). Tullis said he would submit the agenda item for the next meeting but did not seek immediate action.

No formal vote was taken on sponsorship designation at the March 5 meeting. Commissioners asked county staff and the facilities director to coordinate with the chamber about creating clearer sponsor-category language and to work on a transparent method for allocating any complimentary event seats to county employees.