Category Archives: Speedway

Ongoing Feedback

Steven Gardner writes:

Kitsap Sun reporter Chris Henry attended the County Commissioners meeting today and reported that the commissioners were discussing the county’s reliance on residential property tax. Commissioner Jan Angel briefly turned the conversation to NASCAR.

“It’s so disappointing. I truly believe our elected officials have done a
great disservice to our community.”

Commissioners Chris Endresen and Josh Brown offered no response.

Blame, Reality, the Future

Steven Gardner writes:

The blame game will probably be endless. That ISC got as far as it did this session was a surprise to some people. I know Ray McGovern was quoted more than once saying he thought the deal was dead and then it would rear its head again.

Technically, ISC got hearings and actually made it out of one of them. Compare that to a year ago, when finding sponsors was trouble, and it’s an improvement.

Getting out of the first Senate committee, however, required language in the bill ISC never would have accepted.

In the end, one thing that seemed to have a major impact on the bill was the same obstacle ISC had from the beginning — the lack of support from local legislators. You can speculate that Kilmer might have jumped on board in the end, but one legislator out of nine isn’t the right kind of mandate for supporters.

The county commissioners were pretty split, but Josh’s Brown’s concerns were perceived as outright objections all the way to the end.

So essentially what you’ve got is a bill for an area where few of the local electeds are willing to back it. Changing the bill to make it non-site specific appealed to some legislators, but not enough of them.

And that element of the bill seems to be window dressing at this point anyway. Otherwise ISC could have abandoned Kitsap and continued to pursue the legislation.

What ISC got from this session was enough support to believe that with a few changes, the company could find success in Olympia one day. I would say if ISC could find a site and a locally enthusiastic crop of politicians, a deal like the one ISC proposed this year could happen. I think it’s reasonable to say we haven’t heard the last of ISC in the Pacific Northwest.

Stagnant Phase

Steven Gardner writes:

A couple of you have mentioned the future of this blog, and I’ll just answer with the second part of my response to Victoria Taft of KPAM. It will be an organic process. We won’t kill the blog, but we have always acknowledged that someday we might have to determine it dead. We seem to be a long way from that, so when stuff of interest to you comes up, we’ll post it. And as long as you want to continue discussing this issue, this board is likely to be here for you.

Someone who does consider himself or herself “retired” from this discussion nonetheless sent me a link to a story from Roanoke, NASCAR admits stagnant phase.

The story leads with other comments from ISC’s investor call Tuesday. It’s interesting to me that some comments in this story, written for people who have an everyday interest in NASCAR, mean different things to people out here who only got interested in the sport when a track was proposed as a neighbor.

For example:

“All sports have growth spurts and reach plateaus at various times,” said John Saunders, ISC’s executive vice president and chief operating officer. “NASCAR is not unique. What is unique is that this is NASCAR’s first time.”


Said ISC President Lesa France Kennedy in a statement: “Any decision to execute on growth opportunities is guided by the fundamental principal of building long-term value for our shareholders.”


Three Cup races have been held at ISC tracks so far this season. The Daytona 500, which holds 168,000 seats, sold out. California Speedway did not sell out its 92,000 seats, but Saunders reported that the grandstand attendance was up an unspecified amount from last year’s race. Last weekend’s Martinsville race, Saunders said, was a near sellout.

‘Substantially All’

Steven Gardner writes:

During the International Speedway Corp. conference call with investors and analysts Tuesday to discuss the company’s first quarter financials, John Saunders, chief operating officer said the following:

“Earlier this year legislation concerning the public funding portion of the speedway development was introduced into the Washington State Legislature. The bill was discussed in several state House and Senate commtee hearings and during this time several modifications to the bill were proposed.

“We agreed to substantially all of the proposed changes.

“Despite our willingness to find common ground on the proposed modifications, it has recently become apparent that additional modifications would be proposed to the legislation that were unacceptable to ISC.

“Due to the increased risks that the collective modifications would have a significant negative impact on the project’s financial model, we felt it was in our best long-term interest to discontinue the speedway development at this site.

“The Pacific Northwest has a large motorsports fan base and we still believe it represents an attractive future opportunity for our company. We remain interested in a future speedway development in the region.”

26th Dems Love SKIA

The 26th District Democrats passed a resolution asking lawmakers, now that the ISC proposal is dead, to invest in the South Kitsap Industrial Area. The press release (You can read the entire thing by clicking on the link at the bottom of this post.) also includes a metaphor.

As for the idea that NASCAR was chased away by hostile opposition, former 26LD Chair Mark Brown pointed out that this wasn’t ISCs first failure in the Pacific Northwest, since the Florida corporation had made previous attempts to site a racetrack in Yelm and Marysville.

“If a young man asks three different women to the prom and they all turn him down, I think maybe that guy needs to reassess the approach he’s using,” he said.

It’s a cute quote, but in reality ISC considered Yelm, but never chose it. The site there was ruled out before Snohomish, then Kitsap properties were chosen. There was vocal opposition in Yelm, but I haven’t found anything to suggest Yelm ever would have been ISC’s first choice.

UPDATE: I take it back. The News-Tribune had this line in its Tuesday story:

Negotiations for International Speedway Corp. to develop a track in the Marysville area went awry in 2004 when local officials backed away. Before that, the company had eyed a site near Yelm. Local opposition prompted it to pursue Marysville instead.

Continue reading

Mixed Reactions

Steven Gardner writes:

Yesterday I went to Safeway in Bremerton, Fred Meyer in Port Orchard and Costco in Silverdale (where I hoped to find a North Kitsap or Bainbridge resident) to talk to residents about ISC’s announcement that it wouldn’t locate here. For some reason I’m always surprised when the reality matches my assumptions.

For all we know residents are still near evenly divided on the track issue, though a majority did say they didn’t want tax dollars paying for it in the survey the county did last year. When I go out and do people-on-the-street interview, my main goal is finding a diversity of views. I thought it warranted in this case, since opponents and proponents have made themselves known. The surprise was I didn’t have to work all that hard to get diverse views. I approached eight people. Two wouldn’t go on record. The other six were divided exactly in half — three for and three against. In each location the first two I got on record gave me one for and one against. Their reasons were different, but they seemed to represent what we know about county residents’ opinions.

I wanted to go to Central Market in Poulsbo and either Town & Country or Safeway on Bainbridge, but I ran out of time.

After the Costco visit I hung out in the Best Buy parking lot because I was again to be a guest on Victoria Taft’s show on KPAM radio in Portland. It was a short visit this time. At the end she asked me what will happen with this blog. My response was it depends on how long people can discuss a moot point.

Last night former Kitsap Sun reporter Chad Lewis, who was one of the original NASCAR reporters when ISC first announced its intention to come here, shared with me his radio experiences. He was on KUOW twice, but also made an appearance on an Ohio radio show hosted by what he remembers as “Mr. T-bone and the Fish.”

We’re still digging to find out as much as we can about what happened after the Senate Ways & Means Committee hearing and what may happen in the future. We’re also putting together a slideshow that would attempt to tell the entire story of Kitsap’s flirtation with NASCAR from beginning to end.

Switching Feet

Steven Gardner writes:

NASCAR driver Greg Biffle, who’s from Southwest Washington, thinks Washington will have to go after NASCAR next time around. Here’s a transcript from a press conference he had this morning with NASCAR media.

Q. Sorry to be a little bit off topic here, but obviously I want to get your reaction on what happened yesterday in Washington with the IST (sic), their effort toward getting a track. Are you surprised by this ultimately or did you kind of see it heading down this road, and do you think that they should continue and find an alternate venue, that it is doable?

GREG BIFFLE: Well, it’s a difficult situation for me because, I’ll tell you what, NASCAR is much more persistent than I would be. You know, I applaud them for that. They’ve done a tremendous amount of work and effort put into trying to get a racetrack in the Northwest.

Like we talked about, if there’s any city or any state across the board that has an opportunity to get a racetrack and get a race date, they’re rolling out the red carpet, they’re doing anything that they can do to get a race day or a racetrack. Go talk to the people at Rockingham or anywhere else around, Iowa Speedway or anywhere, Kentucky, they’re willing to chop off one arm to get a race date. And we’re trying to go in and build a place, and it seems like we’re getting a lot of resistance from that.

I don’t know, I’m kind of closed-minded, so when I got all that harassment on trying to go in and build a racetrack, I would have turned around and walked away and said, “Your loss, not mine.” I’m from the state of Washington, and it is frustrating for me that we can’t get a racetrack there, that we can’t get those people on board yet.

I think there’s a ton of support, and I think there’s –- like I’ve said before, there’s a few bad apples in the basket that ruin the entire basket. You know, there’s a bunch of great supporters up there and a bunch of great people, but there’s a few people that are against it, and because of that, we’re having a tough time.

You know, I know that NASCAR – I’ve talked to them and they said they’re not going to give up for sure, but there’s going –- I think now it’s going to have –- the shoe is going to have to be on the other foot. They’re going to have to pursue us. We’ve tried to wine and dine and sweet-talk you and do all this and it hasn’t worked, so we’re going to back off so now you’re going to have to do that to get us to come build a racetrack. I think that that’s going to be what it’s going to take to get a racetrack in the state of Washington.

They’re going to have to realize that this is something we’ve got to have going forward for the next however-many years, and it’s the greatest thing for us up here revenue-wise, sports-wise and all that and come to that realization. And until then, there won’t be a racetrack there.

Another point of view

Christopher Dunagan writes:

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, offered his own perspective on the matter. As you’ll see in my story tomorrow, Rockefeller says the bill was unlikely to make it out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee because of a number of concerns.

Rockefeller said he met with Lt. Gov. Brad Owen and ISC lobbyist David Michener last week when it was suggested that ISC might be willing to make additional changes to the bill.

Rockefeller said he told them that he saw three levels of concern:
1) At the state level, a need for financial assurance that out-of-state attendance projections would be met.
2) At the county level, a commitment that local governments would not be left holding the bag for costs related to the track.
3) At the community level, a general acceptance within Kitsap County, such as a vote among county residents. (ISC had agreed to a vote of the entire three-county region, including Pierce and Mason counties.)

Rockefeller said Michener told him that something could be worked out, but nothing was done before Monday’s announcement about ISC’s pullout from Kitsap County.
“It was clear to me,” said Rockefeller, “that there were a number of significant concerns. Maybe out of this experience they will be willing to be more forthcoming.”

When I called ISC’s Lenny Santiago a second time, he said Rockefeller was not the only legislator raising concerns about the bill.
“When you take them altogether you get the full impact of the modifications,” he said.

My story tomorrow will include comments from state Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, and Lt. Gov. Brad Owen. More follow-ups will come.

Beer or Champagne — It’s Over

Steven Gardner writes:

It’s beer for track supporters. Champagne for opponents. ISC announced it will no longer pursue Kitsap County as a speedway site.

Christopher Dunagan is working on the news story. Go to for the ongoing developments. The release said it’s not pursuing Kitsap. That’s it. There’s no indication on the press release about whether the company will pursue another site in Washington.

Lenny Santiago, ISC spokesman, said the deal is done in Kitsap foor good and ISC is done with Washington for this year.

The press release is below.

Continue reading

D.C. Hearing

Steven Gardner writes:

The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform had a hearing today on taxpayer financed stadiums, convention centers and hotels. Why?

The public justification for public financing, including construction financing with tax exempt bonds, is that this is an investment that brings jobs and consumers to a city’s downtown. Academic research on the value to economic development, however, has universally concluded that sports stadiums, convention centers and hotels do not increase economic activity in downtown areas.

Seattle’s Nick Licata, a vocal critic of such deals, was among those who testified. He said Seattle city staff has concluded that when public money is used, stadiums are remodeled every six years, because “public money is readily available and free to the teams.”

In my quick review of the testimonies, Licata might be the only one to mention NASCAR, and he only does it in passing. I think the argument that a speedway creates a different economic reality than stadiums such as Safeco is valid, though you all can and do argue that perhaps the difference doesn’t matter.

Two Taxes

Steven Gardner writes:

Yesterday I wrote a response to Bob Meadows that I planned to write about the difference between the property tax and the leasehold excise tax the county would collect from a speedway. As you may remember, ISC’s new bill would have the company paying the latter. Most the day, until about 8:30 p.m., discussing the difference between the two was still my plan. Christopher Dunagan and I had discussed how we would make a fair comparison and I had begun calling people to see if my figures were fair.

After all the conversations I had with state and county officials yesterday, Meadows’ figures — approximately $2 million for property tax and about $60,000 for leasehold excise tax — seemed reasonable and probably even accurate. But then I spoke with commercial real estate developers and County Commissioner Josh Brown, and I had enough room for doubt.

For one, I still need to come up with an estimate of what fair rents would be. Second, I couldn’t find anyone who would estimate what the speedway property would be assessed at once it’s built. I couldn’t even find anyone who could offer a way to ballpark it.

So what we have in Wednesday’s paper is more or less an extension of what we had in Tuesday’s, except that we’re clear that we’re talking about taxes on the lease, not on the property value.

Nonetheless, the new information Josh Brown more or less likes the tax language in the bill. If Kitsap County can (Of course this all supposes that ISC and track supporters can somehow muster a positive vote in both houses of the Legislature. I don’t think I’m editorializing when I say that’s still a longshot.) negotiate for all of the admissions taxes and get those leasehold taxes and if the taxes to the emergency and school districts come through, you’re not far from the $2 million Bob Meadows estimates. You’re not there, but you’re not as far away as you were. And Chris Endresen makes the case that admissions taxes are the one revenue source that the county can spend wherever it wants.

I’ve made another call to the county to see if we can nail down the difference. Once we get it, we’ll at least post it here.

Calling the Troopers

Steven Gardner writes:

Here are some thoughts from Monday’s hearing (Here’s the TVW recording of the hearing.) that didn’t make it into the story. After the recap of some of the testimony, I’ll hearken back to my Fontana trip and provide a travel log of a few of my experiences, including one in which a security guard threatened to have Washington State Troopers escort me out of the hearing room.

Continue reading

Bill Changes

Steven Gardner writes:

If you’re so inclined, you can read the new bill by clicking on the link below. This is the bill that the Senate Ways & Means Committee will be discussing today.

Also, I think it worth noting that the speedway bill is one of four items on the committee’s agenda today. I don’t know if that’s significant because in the earlier committee meetings it was the only issue. Perhaps Ways & Means can’t take more time this late in the session.

If you just want the shorthand version of what the changes are, look for the underlines and strikeouts in the bill text. That can be a little misleading, though, if you read a single change without reading the context of the section it falls in. You’ve been warned.

Also, I copied this from a Word document, and the underlines and strikethroughs didn’t copy. So, I reinserted them. If I missed any, my apologies.

Christopher Dunagan adds:

A couple of PDFs for you all:

Summary of the changes

Senate bill language

As Bob Meadows pointed out, the text of the legislation that Steve inserted here ended at the section that begins “EXEMPTION FROM FOREST LAND COMPENSATION TAX.” I tried to insert the rest of the text, but this blog software apparently limits the length. So that’s why I posted the PDFs above.

I can’t stop chuckling about where this text ended, totally by accident, I assure you. Mark was the first to point it out in his post below. What it was supposed to say was, “A copy of the notice of approval … be filed by the assessor in the same manner as deeds are recorded.”

Continue reading

A “green” NASCAR debate?

Christopher Dunagan writes:

Environmental issues related to the South Kitsap speedway site have stayed on the back burner for a couple of reasons. First, the amount of information has been somewhat limited — although the recent “capital facilities plan” put out by ISC adds something to the discussion. Second, there’s not much point in my launching an in-depth site investigation if the track has no hope of getting past the Legislature.

Nevertheless, when the opportunity came up to visit IslandWood with Tim Thompson, an ISC consultant, I took it. Dona Keating had arranged the visit, and Port Orchard Mayor Kim Abel added an interesting perspective. We had a nice, if entirely surface, discussion about how IslandWood’s sustainable design ideas might be adopted at the track.

I have to admit that it still seems out of character for ISC to talk about energy-efficiency and sustainability efforts for a NASCAR track, where speed is the goal and the likely byproducts are noise and pollution. But my mind remains open.

I believe this community has a ways to go before we need to have a truly serious discussion about the environmental aspects of the speedway. Tim Thompson is probably right when he says that stormwater will be the biggest environmental issue. But I don’t forget about the wildlife that inhabit the area and other concerns that would not be so easy to mitigate.

So, do you think it makes sense to talk about the proposed speedway in terms of environmental standards, or is this just “putting lipstick on a pig,” as suggested by Beth Wilson of West Sound Conservation Council?

Sweetening the deal

Christopher Dunagan writes:

ISC officials have announced changes to the bill authorizing creation of a public speedway authority, the entity that would own the track. Although they have not released the precise language, they say the legislative changes will essentially lay all the tax issues open for negotiation with the host authority. How that will work legally will be interesting to see. Could the county commissioners be given authority to decide whether the track should pay leasehold taxes or forestland replacement taxes? Some of these taxes would go to other entities, such as fire and port districts.

Meanwhile, some opponents of the legislation are crying foul because the bill is technically still alive after the “cutoff” date, which normally requires that bills pass one house and move to the other by March 14. Beyond the fact that the legislators can generally do anything they want if they can garner the votes, apparently the Senate leadership agrees that this bill has budget implications. That means the deadline is really the end of the legislative session. Steve Gardner covered this more than two weeks ago.

Next hearing: Will it be the last this year?

Christopher Dunagan writes:

Another big hearing is set for Monday, when the Senate bill dealing with the speedway goes before the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Officials with International Speedway Corp. say they may announce some new changes to the bill, but we probably won’t hear anything before Monday. From what I gather, ISC officials are still trying to decide what alterations, if any, should be made.

Supporters, of course, want to keep the atmosphere as positive as they can, and anything is possible, but opponents are reaching for the funeral chimes.
“If I were a betting man,” said Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, “I would say this is not going to happen. As I heard one person say, ‘It’s dead but still quivering.'”

Meanwhile, a similar bill in the House appears to be going nowhere, according to Ross Hunter, chairman of the House Finance Committee, where the bill is bottled up.
“I don’t have anyone coming to me saying, ‘I want to move this bill,'” he said. “You have to have a lot of interest to move a bill like that.”

These developments are covered in a story to be published Thursday.

Oh yes, if you want to go, the hearing is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. in Senate Hearing Room 4 of the John A. Cherberg Building.

Council to Council

Steven Gardner writes:

We interrupt my time off to post this e-mail exchange between Bremerton City Councilman Adam Brockus and Fontana City Councilwoman Janice Rutherford.

Rutherford was one of the council members I spoke with in September for this story when Larry Steagall and I went to Fontana to witness the weekend.

Councilwoman Rutherford,

I am a councilman from Bremerton, WA, a city of 36,000 people and anchored by the Puget Sound Navy Shipyard.

We have been slowly successful at revitalizing our downtown after retailers left decades ago. The city is currently being courted by ISC to put a new NASCAR track into the one of our annexation areas using a Public Speedway Authority. The enabling legislation is currently running though the State Legislature now as bill 6040.

It will probably be sent to a public vote because the bonds will be guaranteed by local sales taxes.

I also acknowledge that we are a smaller city with limited hotel facilities and that most of the fans may be staying in Tacoma or Seattle.

Of course, we do not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that you have with your track. I was wondering if there was anything you could recommend, councilperson-to-councilperson, that might be beneficial to our city and its people to put to either the enabling legislation or negotiated afterwards.

I thank you for time and will be very interested in your reply.

Adam C. Brockus
Bremerton City Councilman, District 3 (Manette)


Councilman Brockus,

Thank you for your note seeking Fontana’s experience with ISC/NASCAR.

There are, indeed, valuable lessons to be learned from folks who have done this before. So, here in no particular order, are some of my thoughts on what Fontana’s experience has been:

Having the Speedway has brought us greater name recognition, awareness, positive image, and visibility around the country. That given us an opening to talk with other businesses about coming to Fontana. I cannot positively point to any great recruiting success that has come from that, but I can tell you that conversations are easier and we at least get a hearing that we may not have been given before.

We, too, have few hotels and restaurants in the area of the Speedway. That, combined with the need to keep traffic flowing, means that Speedway visitors spend their money in surrounding communities rather than our own. They stay in hotels in Ontario and eat at restaurants in Rancho Cucamonga. That is not to say we do not experience economic benefit, but the benefit is much more widespread and regional than specific to Fontana.

Speaking of traffic: ugh. Actually, the Speedway and local law enforcement does a stellar job of moving 100,000+ people into and out of the Speedway for the two major events per year. Even with their great efficiency (again, that efficiency is what puts people back onto freeways and takes them and their money OUT of town immediately after a race), people who live near the Speedway will basically be trapped in their houses for several hours for several days each time there is a major event. I live one mile from the track. If I am not going to the race, I plan to just stay at home for the weekend. I do not go the grocery store, out to eat, or anywhere else involving the car. The road closures, detours and traffic are just too onerous for the few hours leading up to and the several hours following a race. Also, it is quite unpredictable. Traveling that one mile to the Speedway has taken me ten minutes for some races and 1 1/2 for others.

Noise: not bad. I am one mile due north. I can tell when there are cars on the track– for the races or for testing, commercial filming or other reasons– based on a high-pitched whine if I am outside or if I have my south-facing windows open. But if I am in the house with windows closed, I am not aware of the noise. There was only one unfortunate exception in the first year. The Speedway is also a test track for the University of CA and I believe they rent it out to others. In this case, a car manufacturer was doing a 24-hour test run. Because of the unique weather conditions that night, the car(s) on the track created so much noise that I believed there were dirt bikes racing on my street at 2am. I was not alone– the entire neighborhood was up and calling the police. Somehow the sound of the car was reverberating off the empty metal grandstands and echoing back into our neighborhood. The low-lying marine layer kept the noise from dissipating upward as it normally should have. The public outcry subsequent to this incident resulted in the county changing the Speedway’s use permit so that we do not have a repeat of this sleepless night for thousands.

The Speedway has given local charities a tremendous opportunity to raise money. They will take and use as many volunteers as can be generated, and I mean thousands. My Rotary Club, for example, provides more than 200 volunteers over a four-day event to drive the handicap access carts to get visitors around the track, as well as conducting VIP tours, and running the regular parking lot tram service. Over the four days, we raise in excess of $12,000. In turn, we use that money for scholarships and Katrina relief efforts. It’s not only a great fundraiser, but everyone involved has great fun.

That said, there is also tension between the Speedway’s role in the county versus the city. We both “claim” the Speedway as a matter of pride. The Speedway will work with the county when that is convenient for them, or seek out the city if they believe there’s a better deal to be made.

Our city has to spend a great deal of cash out-of-pocket to “enjoy” the Speedway events. We buy a pit row suite each season (the county buys skyboxes, which are way too expensive for us) and then have to pay outrageous amounts for the food/beverages ordered for the races.

We try to use the suites for economic development purposes, but, again, I cannot point to any specific success stories that have come out of this. We are able to use it to reward employees, but it is an awfully big expenditure for that purpose. Again, we go back to the intangible benefit of being able to claim the Speedway as ours and people knowing where we are on the map because of it.

That’s all I can think of off the top of my head. If you have any specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them or refer you to others who might have additional insight. Best wishes with your decision!


Janice Rutherford
Fontana City Council

Tourism Chief’s Hypothetical Scenario

Steven Gardner writes:

Grant Griffin, executive director of the Kitsap Peninsula Visitor & Convention Bureau, asks in the bureau’s monthly newsletter whether Kitsap would welcome another kind of employer.

It has certainly been entertaining and sometimes frustrating watching the letters to the editor and listening to discussions regarding locating a NASCAR track in Kitsap. My personal opinion is that it would bring much needed economic diversity to the county and surrounding communities. The reasons for not wanting the track range from government allowing ISC to remove valuable property from the tax rolls, to ruining our environment by allowing toxic runoff into our aquifers and Hood Canal, plus a myriad of other negatives too numerous to mention.

Let me now pose a hypothetical scenario regarding a hypothetical organization that wants to relocate to Kitsap County. Their first requirement is to obtain thousands of acres of land, all located on the water. They would require that this land be removed from the tax rolls, and they would put up fences around these properties so that the general public would not have access to it. Then they would bring in 20,000 or so employees who would work behind these walls, a great number of whom would commute to work every day and clog our already crowded highways. The cloistered property would have its own police force, grocery stores, theaters, shops and no sales tax could be collected on any purchases.

Then there is the work that goes on behind the walls. It involves powerful explosives of all kinds and storage of them on site. Some of the weapons that are also present are nuclear and are designed to power boats, and others are in missiles on board these boats. However there is still a need to store many other types of fuels to be used in their work. Several of the main undertakings by this organization would be repairing large ships as well as scrapping them. All of which is done on or near the water. The good news is that this organization employees over 5,000 local residents.

Fellow citizens of Kitsap, would this organization stand a chance of locating here?