I'll try, but will most likely be running late, the meeting on the other hand I'll be 10 minutes early!
!!Important meeting to discuss reopening Rollins Pass!!
- Thread starter Tramontana
- Start date
I'll try, but will most likely be running late, the meeting on the other hand I'll be 10 minutes early!
MDH33
Hard Core 4+
Thanks Mike, I think someone from RPRA was following the thread on Adventure Rider. so, hopefully they're planning on being there.
I hope You're planning on attending too! Having you, Ige and Kevin there will be great since you all have a lot more knowledge of the work the club has done up there than I.
MDH33
Hard Core 4+
Thanks everyone from Rising Sun who made it to the meeting.
I think most people in the room appreciated what you said Brandon...except for Ben Pearlman of course.
nuclearlemon
Hard Core 4+
it's long....and i'm tired, so sorry about the quality, but you will get the picture.
There was awesome attendance by the multi use community and the Rollins Pass Restoration Association. In addition, were
Councilman Doug Young from Sen. Udall's office, Commissioner Nancy Stuart from Grand County, commissioner Pearlman from
Boulder Cty, Christine Walsh from the Forest Service, commissioner Buddy Schmaltz from Gilpin Cty, and commissioners Newberry
and Baumgartner from Grand Cty (via phone). there were about two anti motorized recreation folks. There was also a rep from jared Polis' office.
First question related to the wording in the James Peak Wilderness Act, regarding what is meant by "attendant" road and trail
closures that would be closed if Rollins Pass was opened. It is added to clean up any spurs and illegal bypasses, but could
(not will, but could) also mean the closure of Jenny Creek. Also, Boulder Wagon Road is, for lack of a better word,
protected in the James Peak Wilderness Act, but it is not exempt from closure through the Indian Peaks Wilderness Act. Young
couldn't find the map referred to in the JPWA.
The biggest issue is what is the legal status of the road? Is it a cty rd? a railroad right of way? a forest service road?
That will determine who is reponsible for the road.
The JPWA states that if one or more counties requests the road be opened, the forest service has to help facilitate opening
the road. Gilpin originally requested it be opened about five years ago, and restated that in another letter, which i have a
copy of, in 2009. Pearlman confirms that it has been about five years ago since it was first discussed.
Pearlman states three major issues. Liability, environment, and lack of funding. Boulder cty did have to pay out when the
fireman was injured in the 90s and he stresses that he's trying to protect the taxpayers money. He went onto point out that
while he has us looking for multi use, he also has a lot of folks that dont' want motorized that he also has to consider, the
n that the forest service is stretched thin financially already.
Steve Green was quick to rebutt the non motorized folks have thousands of acres between James Peak, Indian Peak and multiple
other areas, while OHV routes are sparse already and all we are asking for is 2 roads, each about six miles long (thats the
length of the trail in Boulder County) of a road that's supposed to be open.
Ron Chaney, VP of the Rollins Pass Restoration Assoc, stated that not one rock has fallen since the issue in the 90s, the
trail is safe and that Pearlman needs to remember that it's not his money, it's the taxpayers, which includes the multi use
groups. He also wanted to know why Pearlman says they have talked about it numerous times, but there are no reports to show
they've discussed it.
RPRA has offered numerous times to pay to have the tunnel inspected by a professional using tomography (kind of like xraying
the tunnel), but Boulder is not willing to do it. Christine Walsh says the FS doesn't have the resources to do allow it to
be done. They have to request a special permit before an engineer can go inspect the tunnel (which a fellow FS ranger has
said takes all of about 10 minutes), then they'd have to see about the environmental impact of getting someone with equipment
to go up and move the jersey barriers so the engineer could get into the tunnel with his equipment.
Someone also pointed out that there is still liablilty having the trail closed, as mtn bikers ride to the tunnel then carry
their bikes down off the top. someone could easily slip and fall and end up down the hill in yankee doodle lake. Pearlman
pointed out that it was supposed to be safe when it was reopened in the 90s also, but it wasn't.
Someone asked if Boulder would relinquish the road to Gilpin and/or Grand County, Pearlman ignored the comment. It was also
pointed out that Gilpin and Grand County have discussed a 'Tunnel Authority' which would take liability away from the
counties. Pearlman says he's never heard anything about it, but would like to see the proposal. Everyone I spoke too felt
that he was still reluctant about it. Gilpin County pointed out that they are still all for the tunnel authority and Grand
County seconded the emotion.
at this point, Pearlman started to state that he had to leave as he had another meeting to attend. he saved one hour for a
meeting that was slated to last three hours....there's dedication
Juanita Straight of the RPRA was glad to hear Pearlman referring to the road as a county road and wanted to know why it
hasn't been maintained. When the road started to get bad, a lot of the residents of Rollinsville volunteered to maintain the
road, using their own equipment and Boulder County told them no. She also stressed getting the tunnel opened long enough to
send the engineer in to do tomography of the tunnel.
Ann Vickory of the Indian Peaks something or another spoke on behalf of hikers and anti access crowds regarding people going
off trail and blazing illegal routes or bypassing obstacles and Commissioner Newberry from Grand County reassured her that
Grand Cty is not against wilderness and has hundreds of Wilderness area. They would want illegal routes closed, but not at
the expense of the legal routes. Blazing trails in the six miles that we are requesting be opened is highly unlikely as
there is a 45 degree wall on one side of the road, and a 45 degree dropoff on the other side. Baumgartner from Grand Cty,
then reinforced that the trail was not supposed to be permanently closed.
Jerry Abboud of COHVCO inquired as to the type and limit of their insurance. They are self insured to $150k/person up to
$600k. He pointed out under Tort law the 90's incident wouldn't have cost as much as the check they'll be writing for the
Rocky Mtn Christian Church lawsuit (I don't know what he's referring to, maybe a boulderite could fill us in...this was
referred to a couple of times). The purpose of Tort reform was to allow the entities to do more for the people, not less.
Paula Becker, a motorcyclist with a background in Wildlife Biology and backcountry studies, pointed out the dangers to other
trails by removing trails and forcing a growing group onto a smaller number of trails. She stated that the excessive use is
the damage that Ann is talking about, not blazing new trails, at which point Pearlman showed his ignorance by stating he was
sick of "us" threatening to go wherever we wanted if they closed the trail,which was never once said or even inferred. He
made a couple more ignorant comments along the same lines before finally shutting up and leaving.
Next up was Christine Walsh, who may have learned to like Rising Sun with all the work we've done in the last few years, but
it wasn't at all evident today. She stated that ownership of the road is very sketchy, Rollins Pass Road has been deeded
back and forth between the Interior Dept, the FS and the Railroad Authority so many times, plus, there are issues with
counties thinking it's theirs while the FS thinks it's theirs. Gilpin and Grand Counties have been maintaining the road
using Schedule A, where the FS and the County come to a mutual agreement as to which trails in the county to maintain and
while the county maintains it, the FS pays for the maintenance. The road is also designated as a historical route, which
complicates any future maintenance, since everything done to the road has to be approved by the Historical Commission. In
order for the counties to claim the road, they would have to get the ok from the Historical Commission. Then an EIS would
have to be done because of the historical aspect. Christine estimated that this would cost R$3/4 to $1million dollars and
would take a very long time. and the FS doesn't have the money to do it. Grand County doesn't care who has ownership, they
will continue to claim there portion of the road and maintain it using rs2477. Counties could pay for the EIS, with the FS
overseeing everything. If they went this way, they would be free to maintain the road as a county road.
The FS is very uninterested in opening the tunnel because along with Boulder Cty, they were also part of the lawsuit and had
to pay out a lot of money. Tort protection does not apply to the feds.
Jerry Abboud asked about a federal finding as a result of the 90s incident, which would've been standard and Christine had no
information.
Someone asked if the historical label also applied to BWR, to which Christine wasn't sure, but she said that was part of
Indian Peaks Wilderness and opening the trail is not an option. The law that Udall set draws BWR and Rollins Pass both out
of the JPWA, but does not mention if they are part of IPWA. Christine also talked about Kingston peak since it's a lot of
high altitude tundra like Rollins Pass and said something about IPWA acquiring that trail also, so enjoy it while you can
Someone asked if it was ok for the user groups to do fundraising and/or donate to pay for the EIS. Yes, but the engineers
would report to the FS. We would be cut out of the loop information wise.
Other issues that Christine states the FS has a problem with are the width of the road is only 150-300' so off trail would be
an issue...again. there's a wall on one side and a cliff on the other...i don't see an issue. Also, counties would have to
maintain and monitor it. She also is set on the fact that there would have to be amenity's like bathrooms and picnic tables
"because the public would expect it". Any studies needed couldn't be done because, while there is a Section of the Federal
Lands Program that covers federal highways and roadways, that the forest service gets are currently being used up to work on
the bark beetle issue, then, they will have to work on water issues. And and EIS would have to be done to the road before
they could even determine who is responsible for the road. Grand County has been claiming their section since 1953 as a
county road.
In the end, BWR was brought up and Christine flat out refused to talk about it. As for Rollins Pass, Christine stated that
the FS would follow Boulders example. Doug pointed out that the FS cannot be an obstacle when it comes to getting the road
opened back up.
Doug has promised to have Udall's office look into who has legal ownership of the road, but stated that it would take a while
because there will be lawyers involved. He requested that Gilpin and Grand counties send the tunnel authority proposal over
to Boulder County again. He wanted to get someone up to inspect the tunnel, this is where Christine said that can't happen
and went into her speal about special use permits. He asked the two counties present what they wanted the road to be and it
was agreed that they both wanted it to be a 2wd passable road, to open around July 4th every year.
Where it goes from here, i won't even speculate, but it's a start.
There was awesome attendance by the multi use community and the Rollins Pass Restoration Association. In addition, were
Councilman Doug Young from Sen. Udall's office, Commissioner Nancy Stuart from Grand County, commissioner Pearlman from
Boulder Cty, Christine Walsh from the Forest Service, commissioner Buddy Schmaltz from Gilpin Cty, and commissioners Newberry
and Baumgartner from Grand Cty (via phone). there were about two anti motorized recreation folks. There was also a rep from jared Polis' office.
First question related to the wording in the James Peak Wilderness Act, regarding what is meant by "attendant" road and trail
closures that would be closed if Rollins Pass was opened. It is added to clean up any spurs and illegal bypasses, but could
(not will, but could) also mean the closure of Jenny Creek. Also, Boulder Wagon Road is, for lack of a better word,
protected in the James Peak Wilderness Act, but it is not exempt from closure through the Indian Peaks Wilderness Act. Young
couldn't find the map referred to in the JPWA.
The biggest issue is what is the legal status of the road? Is it a cty rd? a railroad right of way? a forest service road?
That will determine who is reponsible for the road.
The JPWA states that if one or more counties requests the road be opened, the forest service has to help facilitate opening
the road. Gilpin originally requested it be opened about five years ago, and restated that in another letter, which i have a
copy of, in 2009. Pearlman confirms that it has been about five years ago since it was first discussed.
Pearlman states three major issues. Liability, environment, and lack of funding. Boulder cty did have to pay out when the
fireman was injured in the 90s and he stresses that he's trying to protect the taxpayers money. He went onto point out that
while he has us looking for multi use, he also has a lot of folks that dont' want motorized that he also has to consider, the
n that the forest service is stretched thin financially already.
Steve Green was quick to rebutt the non motorized folks have thousands of acres between James Peak, Indian Peak and multiple
other areas, while OHV routes are sparse already and all we are asking for is 2 roads, each about six miles long (thats the
length of the trail in Boulder County) of a road that's supposed to be open.
Ron Chaney, VP of the Rollins Pass Restoration Assoc, stated that not one rock has fallen since the issue in the 90s, the
trail is safe and that Pearlman needs to remember that it's not his money, it's the taxpayers, which includes the multi use
groups. He also wanted to know why Pearlman says they have talked about it numerous times, but there are no reports to show
they've discussed it.
RPRA has offered numerous times to pay to have the tunnel inspected by a professional using tomography (kind of like xraying
the tunnel), but Boulder is not willing to do it. Christine Walsh says the FS doesn't have the resources to do allow it to
be done. They have to request a special permit before an engineer can go inspect the tunnel (which a fellow FS ranger has
said takes all of about 10 minutes), then they'd have to see about the environmental impact of getting someone with equipment
to go up and move the jersey barriers so the engineer could get into the tunnel with his equipment.
Someone also pointed out that there is still liablilty having the trail closed, as mtn bikers ride to the tunnel then carry
their bikes down off the top. someone could easily slip and fall and end up down the hill in yankee doodle lake. Pearlman
pointed out that it was supposed to be safe when it was reopened in the 90s also, but it wasn't.
Someone asked if Boulder would relinquish the road to Gilpin and/or Grand County, Pearlman ignored the comment. It was also
pointed out that Gilpin and Grand County have discussed a 'Tunnel Authority' which would take liability away from the
counties. Pearlman says he's never heard anything about it, but would like to see the proposal. Everyone I spoke too felt
that he was still reluctant about it. Gilpin County pointed out that they are still all for the tunnel authority and Grand
County seconded the emotion.
at this point, Pearlman started to state that he had to leave as he had another meeting to attend. he saved one hour for a
meeting that was slated to last three hours....there's dedication
Juanita Straight of the RPRA was glad to hear Pearlman referring to the road as a county road and wanted to know why it
hasn't been maintained. When the road started to get bad, a lot of the residents of Rollinsville volunteered to maintain the
road, using their own equipment and Boulder County told them no. She also stressed getting the tunnel opened long enough to
send the engineer in to do tomography of the tunnel.
Ann Vickory of the Indian Peaks something or another spoke on behalf of hikers and anti access crowds regarding people going
off trail and blazing illegal routes or bypassing obstacles and Commissioner Newberry from Grand County reassured her that
Grand Cty is not against wilderness and has hundreds of Wilderness area. They would want illegal routes closed, but not at
the expense of the legal routes. Blazing trails in the six miles that we are requesting be opened is highly unlikely as
there is a 45 degree wall on one side of the road, and a 45 degree dropoff on the other side. Baumgartner from Grand Cty,
then reinforced that the trail was not supposed to be permanently closed.
Jerry Abboud of COHVCO inquired as to the type and limit of their insurance. They are self insured to $150k/person up to
$600k. He pointed out under Tort law the 90's incident wouldn't have cost as much as the check they'll be writing for the
Rocky Mtn Christian Church lawsuit (I don't know what he's referring to, maybe a boulderite could fill us in...this was
referred to a couple of times). The purpose of Tort reform was to allow the entities to do more for the people, not less.
Paula Becker, a motorcyclist with a background in Wildlife Biology and backcountry studies, pointed out the dangers to other
trails by removing trails and forcing a growing group onto a smaller number of trails. She stated that the excessive use is
the damage that Ann is talking about, not blazing new trails, at which point Pearlman showed his ignorance by stating he was
sick of "us" threatening to go wherever we wanted if they closed the trail,which was never once said or even inferred. He
made a couple more ignorant comments along the same lines before finally shutting up and leaving.
Next up was Christine Walsh, who may have learned to like Rising Sun with all the work we've done in the last few years, but
it wasn't at all evident today. She stated that ownership of the road is very sketchy, Rollins Pass Road has been deeded
back and forth between the Interior Dept, the FS and the Railroad Authority so many times, plus, there are issues with
counties thinking it's theirs while the FS thinks it's theirs. Gilpin and Grand Counties have been maintaining the road
using Schedule A, where the FS and the County come to a mutual agreement as to which trails in the county to maintain and
while the county maintains it, the FS pays for the maintenance. The road is also designated as a historical route, which
complicates any future maintenance, since everything done to the road has to be approved by the Historical Commission. In
order for the counties to claim the road, they would have to get the ok from the Historical Commission. Then an EIS would
have to be done because of the historical aspect. Christine estimated that this would cost R$3/4 to $1million dollars and
would take a very long time. and the FS doesn't have the money to do it. Grand County doesn't care who has ownership, they
will continue to claim there portion of the road and maintain it using rs2477. Counties could pay for the EIS, with the FS
overseeing everything. If they went this way, they would be free to maintain the road as a county road.
The FS is very uninterested in opening the tunnel because along with Boulder Cty, they were also part of the lawsuit and had
to pay out a lot of money. Tort protection does not apply to the feds.
Jerry Abboud asked about a federal finding as a result of the 90s incident, which would've been standard and Christine had no
information.
Someone asked if the historical label also applied to BWR, to which Christine wasn't sure, but she said that was part of
Indian Peaks Wilderness and opening the trail is not an option. The law that Udall set draws BWR and Rollins Pass both out
of the JPWA, but does not mention if they are part of IPWA. Christine also talked about Kingston peak since it's a lot of
high altitude tundra like Rollins Pass and said something about IPWA acquiring that trail also, so enjoy it while you can
Someone asked if it was ok for the user groups to do fundraising and/or donate to pay for the EIS. Yes, but the engineers
would report to the FS. We would be cut out of the loop information wise.
Other issues that Christine states the FS has a problem with are the width of the road is only 150-300' so off trail would be
an issue...again. there's a wall on one side and a cliff on the other...i don't see an issue. Also, counties would have to
maintain and monitor it. She also is set on the fact that there would have to be amenity's like bathrooms and picnic tables
"because the public would expect it". Any studies needed couldn't be done because, while there is a Section of the Federal
Lands Program that covers federal highways and roadways, that the forest service gets are currently being used up to work on
the bark beetle issue, then, they will have to work on water issues. And and EIS would have to be done to the road before
they could even determine who is responsible for the road. Grand County has been claiming their section since 1953 as a
county road.
In the end, BWR was brought up and Christine flat out refused to talk about it. As for Rollins Pass, Christine stated that
the FS would follow Boulders example. Doug pointed out that the FS cannot be an obstacle when it comes to getting the road
opened back up.
Doug has promised to have Udall's office look into who has legal ownership of the road, but stated that it would take a while
because there will be lawyers involved. He requested that Gilpin and Grand counties send the tunnel authority proposal over
to Boulder County again. He wanted to get someone up to inspect the tunnel, this is where Christine said that can't happen
and went into her speal about special use permits. He asked the two counties present what they wanted the road to be and it
was agreed that they both wanted it to be a 2wd passable road, to open around July 4th every year.
Where it goes from here, i won't even speculate, but it's a start.
sank
0
Rocky Mtn Christian Church lawsuit
Whew! so exciting and so frustrating all at the same time. I would have loved to go, but work etc... Excellent writeup of the meeting that many could not make. Thanks!!
As for the money Boulder County spent on Rocky Mountain Christian Church, it went something like this:
So, the geniuses at Boulder County paid a ton in legal fees, and an additional $1.3 mil to RMCC. The church lost a lot of money; the county lost even more, and as usual, the lawyers win, and Rollins pass is still closed.
As a Boulderite and a voter, I will do what I can when election time comes (I always do, but it seems fruitless).
Whew! so exciting and so frustrating all at the same time. I would have loved to go, but work etc... Excellent writeup of the meeting that many could not make. Thanks!!
As for the money Boulder County spent on Rocky Mountain Christian Church, it went something like this:
- 2003 - RMCC wanted more space for their children and asked for permission to add temporary buildings
- Boulder County granted approval, pending master site plan ("forever" plan for their 55 acres)
- RMCC complies at a cost of over $1 mil. RMCC later learns no other applicant had been given this requirement. Church proposal is to use 30% of their land. Boulder County rule-of-thumb is to use 50% of your land.
- Boulder County denies permit, asks court if what they did was legal. Judge AND Jury say: not legal to discriminate against church after approving similar permit for Dawson school. Boulder County was found guilty of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
- Boulder County appeals a losing case, and loses.
- 2010 - Federal Judge orders county to pay church $1.3 mil (only a portion of what the church has spent on the issue)
- Google news search pulled this up: http://www.speroforum.com/a/25713/Christians-win-lawsuit-against-county-government-in-Colorado
So, the geniuses at Boulder County paid a ton in legal fees, and an additional $1.3 mil to RMCC. The church lost a lot of money; the county lost even more, and as usual, the lawyers win, and Rollins pass is still closed.
As a Boulderite and a voter, I will do what I can when election time comes (I always do, but it seems fruitless).
Thank you Ige! You outlined the just of the day very well! I would like to add that every time Christine was cornered she came back with the excuse that ALL BRD resources are tied up right now with bark beetle mitigation. Christina was reminded that the USFS is a vehicle set up to aid and enforce county, state and federal forest service infrastructure rather than being a governing force. It was also reminded that if the legal right a way is determined to be county control the FS would be required to do the EIS. Christine responded by threatening that due to BRD resources being diverted so heavily towards the bark beetle it would likely be 2 or more years till they could do or oversee the EIS.
I pointed out that the road is deteriorating and last year the washout did considerable damage and the road was band-aide repaired. I asked what happens now with this tied up with entities deciding who has control. I reminded that with this years heavy snow pack in the high country that the road could have worse runoff damage. I got no answer, as expected, but I did spark an alert in several folks that hadn't thought about this issue. I reminded that if the road becomes dangerous it will get a "temporary" closure like Needles Eye tunnel did!
I also wanted to add that Summit county has been willing and was the one who graded and repaired the road in the past until BRD refused to pay due to "no resources." Summit is offering to not only blade their section again but pay for that maintenance but the BRD would have to agree.
As you and everyone have painfully realized now is that BRD and Boulder County are the HUGE hurdles that have to be jumped in order to move forward. I think we, RS, need to let both Grand County and Summit County know we are willing and able to help them however we can. I also plan on a road trip when the Corona Pass opens later this year and snoop around the other side of the gates.
I pointed out that the road is deteriorating and last year the washout did considerable damage and the road was band-aide repaired. I asked what happens now with this tied up with entities deciding who has control. I reminded that with this years heavy snow pack in the high country that the road could have worse runoff damage. I got no answer, as expected, but I did spark an alert in several folks that hadn't thought about this issue. I reminded that if the road becomes dangerous it will get a "temporary" closure like Needles Eye tunnel did!
I also wanted to add that Summit county has been willing and was the one who graded and repaired the road in the past until BRD refused to pay due to "no resources." Summit is offering to not only blade their section again but pay for that maintenance but the BRD would have to agree.
As you and everyone have painfully realized now is that BRD and Boulder County are the HUGE hurdles that have to be jumped in order to move forward. I think we, RS, need to let both Grand County and Summit County know we are willing and able to help them however we can. I also plan on a road trip when the Corona Pass opens later this year and snoop around the other side of the gates.
nuclearlemon
Hard Core 4+
uncle ben means gilpin county...he's had summit cty stuck in his head.
uncle ben means gilpin county...he's had summit cty stuck in his head.
Ya what she said!
Thank you again Ige!
I have not followed this closely but have had a lot of experience with the FS and other government entities when it came to land use and environmental concerns. What I have found is that the FS and local government never respond to requests to do something, they only respond to law suits. I humbly submit that if the multi-use really wants to get this opened they will have to sue. This could be in an ADA claim, or something else, but I doubt anything will happen unless there is a threat of litigation.
Rezarf
Hard Core 4+
I'd be game, it is one of my favorite drives in the area.
Thanks so much for all the RS'ers who attended
:I am so proud of our club.
Drew
I think she said 5 years but could be wrong.
I'm game!
Thanks for taking meticulous notes Ige! They agree with my memory.
We can start by not reelecting Ben Pearlman. He clearly believes he has a mandate and refuses to listen to the part of his constituency that doesn't agree with him. I plan on campaigning hard but with reason against him when he runs again...hopefully people will listen.
Jerry Abboud certainly had Pearlman on the ropes a few times, and Pearlman is a lawyer. Was fun to watch him squirm. But I wonder where Multiuse would get that kind of money? We have donations lined up, but not the million+ legal action would require.
I have not followed this closely but have had a lot of experience with the FS and other government entities when it came to land use and environmental concerns. What I have found is that the FS and local government never respond to requests to do something, they only respond to law suits. I humbly submit that if the multi-use really wants to get this opened they will have to sue. This could be in an ADA claim, or something else, but I doubt anything will happen unless there is a threat of litigation.
Old40Dog
Rising Sun Member
Yes! Thanks Ige!
(Darn...I knew that's what we were missing with lunch...he...he...) I'm thinking along the same lines as you, Kevin. Perhaps even hiking or even backpacking if overnight is necessary, past the gates provided we can park somewhere, in order to see first hand what the trail looks like up there. Is it in the bad shape we heard....or is it just a spot or two in need of some more extensive maintenance? That'll give us some real insight into where the opponents to the re-opening are really coming from~
Old40Dog
Rising Sun Member
I have not followed this closely but have had a lot of experience with the FS and other government entities when it came to land use and environmental concerns. What I have found is that the FS and local government never respond to requests to do something, they only respond to law suits. I humbly submit that if the multi-use really wants to get this opened they will have to sue. This could be in an ADA claim, or something else, but I doubt anything will happen unless there is a threat of litigation.
After a few preliminary questions are answered that is certainly an viable option! We need to keep the heat turned up on this thing or they'll just wear us out by dragging it out....That's also why a "look...see" of the area is so important for us to better understand if there's truly some real issues up there or just excuses.....
MDH33
Hard Core 4+
Awesome write-up Ige! Thanks.