Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The facts of the case are simple. In 1966, the county began providing health care benefits to Its <br />retired employees. In 1985, the county began "pooling" the retired employees with the active <br />employees in the rate-setting process. Pooling the two groups allowed retirees to pay lower <br />premiums and receive greater coverage than they otherwise would (pooling benefit). In 2006, <br />after determining its employee health plans were underfunded and needed adjustment, the <br />county decided to "split the pool:' creating different premium pools for active and retired <br />employees. Under the new system, retirees pay higher premiums then they paid while receiving <br />the pooling benefit. <br /> <br />The retirees assert they have a vested right to the pooling benefit. The district court disagreed. <br />As the League's brief explains, the power to set retiree benefits rests with the agency's governing <br />body and its acquiescence cannot be implied . To conclude otherwise would deprive the public of <br />an opportunity to weigh in on a significant undertaking that would ultimately affect taxpayers. <br /> <br />The League wishes to thank Jonathan Holtzman, Steve Cikes, and Kerry O'Donnell of Renne <br />Sloan Holtzman Sakai for drafting the League's brief. <br /> <br />The League will continue to report on this decision as more information becomes available. <br /> <br />8A <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />4 <br />