Board Members present: Dorothy Anderson, Patrick Lanning, Sandra Bishop, and Ron Farmer. Commissioner Paul Conte was excused.

Others present: Randy Berggren, Cathy Bloom, Jean Meyers, Jim Wiley, Jennifer Joule, Roseanna McArthur, JoAnn Andersen, Dick Varner, Tom Buckhouse, Terry Bequette, Debra Smith, Steve Hill, Jim Origliosso, Brian Hawley, Kris Kendal, Mat Northway, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Gavin O'Neill, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder; and members of the public.

President Anderson called the Work Session to order at 5:35 p.m., stating that she would turn the meeting over to Vice President Lanning, due to the fact that she was having trouble hearing. (Commissioner Sandra Bishop arrived at 5:35 and Commissioner Ron Farmer arrived at 6:05 p.m.)

RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM

Jean Meyers, Human Resources Manager, gave an overview of the presentation, detailing the five points to be covered. She summarized them as: 1) refresher, 2) retiree presentation, 3) conceptual overview, 4) Board discussion, and 5) summary of Board discussions.

Jennifer Joule, Communications Coordinator, referred the Board to the handout entitled "Summary of Proposed Retiree Benefits Structure." She summarized the document, detailing tiers 1-4, including criteria for belonging in a tier, medical, pharmaceutical, dental, and vision coverage for members dependent upon medicare eligibility (currently defined at age 65). She detailed the trend increases and cap provisions for all four tiers.

George Mason, EWEB retiree, and spokesperson for the EWEB Retirees, read from a RAG Team letter to the board. It stated that retirees were unhappy with the direction the Board was leaning, felt EWEB's promises to them were not being honored, rejected the project team's recommendations for trend increases and caps, and asked for a six month grace period for any approved premium increase.

Commissioner Farmer arrived.

Ms. Joule referred the Board to the packet entitled "Examples: Proposed Calculations of Trend Cap for EWEB Retirees." She reviewed the information which included total projected premium, EWEB's cap amount, actual trend percent, total actual premium, EWEB's actual contribution, retiree contribution ratio, retiree minimum contribution, and retiree's actual contribution.

Ms. Joule referred the Board to the packet entitled "Options for Calculating Tier 3 'Initial Premiums'." She explained there were now only two options, as option number 3 had been withdrawn by Commissioner Conte. Option 1 was the team recommendation to use current retiree premiums, and option two was to recalculate retiree premiums based on 2003 rates. She reviewed the pros and cons of both options for current retirees and future retirees.

Ms. Meyers explained that employee feedback had been collected on the issue. She summarized that most employees were waiting to see what happened at this meeting.

Commissioner Farmer asked if the rate payers had been surveyed as to where they stood on the issue. Ms. Meyers said they had not.

Ms. Joule referred the Board to the handout entitled "Board Discussion/Decision Items." She reviewed the document which clarified five issues to be decided upon, and highlighted preliminary Board agreements and/or team recommendations.

Vice President Lanning referred the Board to a copy of an e-mail addressed to President Anderson from Paul Conte, EWEB Commissioner. Commissioner Conte's email communicated that he supported the proposal as stated in the handout entitled "Moved," including coverage of additional dependents.

Commissioner Farmer stated that he was in favor of the proposal as stated in the handout entitled "Board Discussion/Decision Items," with the exception of number 3. He said he supported option 3B, "Re-calculate retiree premiums based on 2003 rates," rather than 3A, "Use current retiree premiums."

The Board discussed the 5 items of the proposal. Each Board member explained how they came to their decisions regarding each item. Ms. Joule clarified the Board's position on each of the 5 items: 1) Three in favor of 1A; 2) Three in favor of 2A; 3) Two in favor of 3A, One (Commissioner Farmer) in favor of 3B, 4) Three in favor of 4B, and 5) Three in favor of 5B.

Commissioner Farmer referred to page 8, numbers 7.3 and 7.4 of the proposed motion entitled "Moved." He said the two items were similar in meaning and he was confused as to why item 7.4 remained a part of the motion. Ms. Meyers said item 7.3 replaced item 7.4, but that item 7.4 remained in the document to illustrate the changes that were made to it.

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

_____________ ______________________________________

Assistant Secretary President