boomer47 
Member since Nov 10, 2010


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Utilities rates going down, an FAC, CC partnership, Unit 5's demise, and more

GOP opposes health bill – Pam, you provide no details about this ballot measure and then just slam someone for opposing it – hell, anyone who already has health care should be "dead-set" against this. The majority of people already have some form of health care and most pay for their coverage in part; why would a person also want to pay 3.3% of their wages or from their pension (yes, even retired military people who have Tricare or VA access) into something like this when they already have coverage. Is the state of Colorado going to refund or pay back what a person already pays into Medicare A & B, Tricare, FEHB, or a person’s share of their employer's provided coverage; and, of course, many, many more have been allowed to be on Medicaid now under the Affordable Care Act, and they pay no monthly premium. Why would they want to pay 3.3% out of their meager minimum wage jobs or whatever their making. There are also people who work for companies that provide free health insurance as a benefit. Yes, there are some people that still don't have health care coverage for whatever reason, but the vast majority do and already pay for it. I’m sorry Pam if the Independent doesn’t provide any health benefits coverage or plan and you have to depend on the ACA (and it’s not cheap I may add), but asking people and their employers (they have to ante-up also to the tune of 6.6% of payroll) to pay for something twice is absurd. I think you need to do a little more research and provide the specifics of this plan and do justice to both your profession and the Indy’s readers. If this gets approved by the voters it will drive businesses and retirees out of this state in droves.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 01/28/2016 at 11:28 PM

Re: “County board candidates, potholes, a new police substation, and more

"More room for cops" - so, you can't add-on to the existing building? and now that the city is admitting that the current site has drainage problems, your going to try and sell it - probably for a big loss.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by boomer47 on 07/29/2015 at 8:45 AM

Re: “Keeping it real (estate)

Where did this non-profit (El Paso County Public Facilities Corp) get the money in the first place to be able to just go out and start buying property and then lease it to the county?

Posted by boomer47 on 06/05/2015 at 9:37 AM

Re: “Bad dog owners, Gordon Klingenschmitt, wind farm debate, and more

Bob Wilcox - if the property owners want to do this and the land/property is out in an un-incorporated area, why do the county commissioners have to approve it? shouldn't those owners be able to do what they want with their own property. I'm with you on what you said, but don't understand the county commissioners role in making this decision.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 02/04/2015 at 9:36 PM

Re: “Colorado Springs Airport could get a boost

So, what would the money be used for?

Posted by boomer47 on 12/04/2014 at 6:30 PM

Re: “Chipping away

A Real Conservative - what are you talking about! I don't know much about the FPPA retirement since PERA dominates the news, but a city employee in PERA pays in approx. 8% of salary and the city kicks in 14.6%. Some school districts will soon be paying over 20% of salary for each teacher/employee due to changes for PERA in SB1. The state may "manage" the system, but the employer has to pay in the amounts I stated - not the state. I will add about FPPA, however, that I believe the city was required to pay in several million additional dollars a couple of years ago for that fund to remain solvent. So I'm sorry, but PERA & FPPA pensions are a huge issue for the city budget. Oh, may I also add that I am a retired member of the Federal Civil Service Retirement System in which the employee and employer pay matching amounts into the system of approx. 7% each. It has always been that way, and unlike PERA, no one has ever “tinkered” with the contribution amounts or the original agreed upon vested payout of 50% of high-3 year average salary after 30 years of service. Unless you forgot, back in 1997-1998 the state legislature arbitrarily increased benefits for PERA retirees to 70% of their high-3 salary after 30 years (up from 50%) and also allowed them to purchase credits at very low rates if the employee didn’t have the necessary 30 years. While SB1 made an attempt to reign in those benefits for future retirees, thousands retired under the 70% rule, thus SB1’s need to raise employer contribution rates.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 12/02/2014 at 9:43 AM

Re: “The waterfall no one wanted

Pam Zubeck - a map showing the location of the preservation area in relation to both the townhomes at Pebblewood, the Pinecliff Townhomes, and the Chiaramontes' lot would have been useful. Also, right now it would seem that the city needs to block-off that curb/gutter drain up on Golden Hills Rd to stop rain water from going down the 18-inch storm sewer pipe which runs through the Pebblewood complex; of course, having said this, I don't know where that water from Golden Hills Rd would drain to if they did that.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by boomer47 on 08/07/2014 at 5:53 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation