Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naming Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks commission approves naming of loop trail for donor Richard H. Shaw
Summary
The Gig Harbor Parks Commission voted April 1 to accept staffs recommendation and approve naming the phase-2 loop trail the Richard H. Shaw Loop Trail pursuant to a clause in the 2022 purchase-and-sale agreement; commissioners debated the merits of naming public facilities after individuals but cited the contractual obligation.
Get email alerts on the Naming Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its April 1 meeting the Gig Harbor Parks Commission voted to accept staffs recommendation to name the new loop trail on the phase-2 parcel the "Richard H. Shaw Loop Trail," as set out in the 2022 purchase-and-sale agreement.
The naming clause: staff explained the property was conveyed with naming rights language in the purchase-and-sale agreement; the packet and staff comments noted the donors family supports the name. Commissioners discussed broader policy questions about naming public facilities after individuals but observed the city is obligated by the contract. Chair Louise Timon read a motion to accept the staff recommendation and called for a voice vote; the motion carried with all in favor and no recorded opposition.
Why it matters: commissioners recognized the policy tension—some members said naming can raise strong public responses and urged careful, transparent review in future cases—while also noting honoring a contractual donor commitment can be necessary to secure land for public use.
Action recorded: the commission resolved to accept staffs recommendation to name the loop trail on the donor's former parcel the Richard H. Shaw Loop Trail "pursuant to the 2022 sale agreement," and staff indicated they will follow the citys established naming process (resolution 7 17) for signage and any future references.
Procedure and next steps: staff and commissioners said the naming will follow the citys formal process, including any necessary council action specified by resolution 7 17 and signage steps. No further action was required by the commission at the meeting.
The commission did not record a roll-call vote; the chair stated the motion carried with all in favor.
