Norwood Pension Flap Class-Action Settlement In Works: City And Retirees Ask Judge For 'Fairness Hearing'

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The argument was over complaints that Norwood illegally shifted  increased costs for health care insurance to its pensioners.  Former police and fire department workers said they took lower pay in the 1970s in exchange for promises of medical benefits after they retired.  When the costs rose, Norwood broke its promise.  Judge Charles Kubicki has not set a date for the fairness hearing in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, but the joint request filed last week signals that the conclusion of the lawsuit is near.  The case -- which involved about 150 city workers -- is important, although it has not attracted a great deal of attention.  The Norwood case shows that attempts by state and Cincinnati officials -- who are battling an explosion in pension expenses for public employees -- to chop retirement benefits for government workers will likely wind up in court.

The Norwood lawsuit is Case No. A 098881 and was filed by retirees who started working for that city before 1975.  The city promised health care benefits as part of the pension package.  The retirees said said they gave up pay raises and cost of living adjustments in exchange for the health care benefits.  The retirees claim that in 2005 Norwood forced them to begin paying a portion of their health care insurance premiums:

"Sometime in 2005, the city, without any notice or process being provided to the retirees, implemented a policy that certain police and fire retirees that were non-Medicare eligible would not be reimbursed for all health care premiums.  Indeed, the evidence [to be presented at trial] will reveal that the City reimbursed these premiums since at least 1990 as part of its contractual obligations that were made when induced the retirees to continue to work for at as well as certain language contained in police and fire labor contracts.  Many retirees were made aware of this newly adopted policy not by the City, but by the third party administrator that handles their claims and paperwork."

Norwood said it agreed to pay up to $2,250 a year for co-pays, deductibles and medical expenses not covered by the pension insurance, which came from the Ohio Police and Firefighters Fund.  Norwood contended:  "Any medical expense not covered by the applicable insurance policy or in excess of the ($2,250 a year) would be paid for  by the retirees. . . The plain language of the plan limits benefits to $2,250 'per plan year for each plan participant.'  The language could not be any more clear or unambiguous."

Kubicki was scheduled to try the class-action Oct. 7 without a jury.  The trial was canceled.  The case was originally filed in U.S. District Court where Judge Michael Barrett spent three days holding unsuccessfully settlement talks.  It was moved to Common Pleas Court last year, were the parties tried to mediate a deal.  They have explored a possible settlement, and the Oct. 12 request for a fairness hearing indicates they reached an agreement.  A fairness hearing is unique to class-action litigation -- it requires the judge to determine that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and not based on collusion between the lawyers.  The judge is supposed to act as the protector of the class, and once the settlement is presented, the judge make his evaluation.

Cincinnati Officials Propose Rail Station In Bond Hill: Keeps Passengers Away From Downtown

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The map above is today making the rounds at City Hall. It puts the Cincinnati station for the Ohio 3C passenger rail project in a largely residential neighborhood that is several miles away from downtown. The proposed Bond Hill station -- which is near a closed movie theater with a gigantic parking lot -- is being pushed by city economic development and transit officials. It is just west of Norwood, a suburb whose nearby business district might be in store for a huge boost if a planned rail project gets off the ground.

State officials in Columbus have tentatively selected an east side site near Lunken Airport near the Ohio River for the Cincinnati rail station. City officials have complained the Lunken site "scores low on the Ohio Rail Development Commission station site selection criteria due to poor vehicular, pedestrian and transit access." City officials now want Bond Hill studied. They also believe that the ridership figures for the train would be better. A City Hall memo that is circulating with the the map showing the Bond Hill site notes that ridership numbers look weak. They are projected to be 65,534 per year from Cincinnati, versus 193,622 from Cleveland. The memo suggests a better station location could improve the ridership count and urges that city officials:

"Request that the original Amtrak ridership figures for the City of Cincinnati be studied further. The North Cincinnati station shows a significantly higher ridership figure than the City of Cincinnati. If the inputs and assumptions are identified, that might show how the numbers were derived. We believe these ridership numbers could have a significant impact on the construction phasing of the Cincinnati area stations."

[UPDATE: 12:05 pm -- Just got off the phone with Cincinnati Councilman Cecil Thomas who said there is a second Bond Hill site being talked up -- west of the theater lot and closer to St. Bernard, another small suburb. Thomas said, "One of the questions I have to ask is in terms of the residents in Bond Hill. What is the net effect on residential properties? I think it's a good idea to look at Bond Hill, I just heard about it yesterday. But there needs to be some community awareness because rumors are going to start to fly. Let's study the pros and cons." Thomas said he did not favor putting a train station near Lunken Airport. "It's way out of the way."]

[UPDATE: 2:33 pm -- COAST has followed the Bond Hill developments. Its observations are available here.]