Uvalde County Commissioners approve renaming Fairplex for late Judge William R. Mitchell after public comment

The Uvalde County Commissioners Court voted to name the Uvalde County Fairplex for the late Judge William R. Mitchell, approving the designation while deferring a final decision on the funding mechanism for signage and branding to a future meeting.

Commissioner Roy, who introduced the proposal, said Mitchell 'who served as county judge for multiple terms' ‘‘had the distinction of being the longest serving county judge in Texas history’’ and pushed the Fairplex project forward. He argued the facility'which hosts rodeos, livestock shows, receptions and televised events'was a lasting piece of the county's economic and civic infrastructure that Mitchell helped create.

The proposal drew strong public comment. Diana, a resident who addressed the court during the citizens communications period, said she was "torn" but worried the court had not solicited taxpayer input and asked who would pay for renaming costs. Rhonda urged the court to postpone action, citing past lawsuits and a recent indictment involving the judge and saying "it should be up to [taxpayers] to decide." Rahu Boris said renaming the Fairplex would "erase the identity and history" of a facility the community has known for 15 years and urged a referendum.

Judge Cindy Casper read a letter from Sabinal Mayor Eric J. Gomez asking commissioners to approve the naming, saying Mitchell'a veteran and long-serving public official'left "a mark on Uvalde County." The reading was entered into the record as the mayor's formal support.

During discussion, commissioners and staff described the likely scope of changes as modest: digital advertising and adding lettering to the existing marquee rather than replacing the entire sign. Several commissioners proposed tabling the issue to gather more public input and research funding options; the court first voted to table the naming to the next meeting. After further discussion, Commissioner Roy moved to approve the naming while deferring the manner of payment to a subsequent meeting; that motion was seconded and carried.

The court did not specify a funding source when it approved the name; commissioners discussed using private sponsorship dollars or raising funds outside the county general fund and agreed to resolve payment at a later session. The court directed staff to gather more information about costs and funding options and to allow further public input before finalizing expenditures.

The naming decision is now part of the record; funding and implementation details will be addressed at a future commissioners court meeting.