Leading up to the vote on Nov. 6, the City Yes political action committee has long contested the possible savings from reorganizing the Town of Fishers and Fall Creek Township.
Specifically, they call into question $800,000 of the savings that correspond with Social Security for public safety officers. The savings relate to what is called a 218 Agreement with Social Security.
Last month, City Yes circulated a press release stating the Social Security Administration said no communications were made between the town and the government body and that in the past decade, “no community has withdrawn from a 218 Agreement of Social Security” in relation to various communities, such as Washington Township.
The Town of Fishers has been working with Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, a municipal lawyer, on the matter, who said he worked with those various entities to exclude employees there from Social Security, with Washington Township’s as the exception, because he says its situation resembles that of Fishers’.
According to Town Manager Scott Fadness, a government entity can opt out of paying the matching amount of money for its employees’ Social Security. In this case, Fishers’ public safety officers.
It can only happen if the Town of Fishers reorganizes, according to both sources.
Bosma said via email that if reorganization occurs, the town and Fall Creek dissolve – terminating its individual “Modification Agreement,” allowing a new one to be structured.
“A new modification agreement for the new juristic entity (SSA’s terminology) – the newly created City of Fishers – will be entered into, and if properly structured, would eliminate from coverage those who are participants in a ‘qualified retirement system,’” he said.
Firefighters and police officers in Fishers utilize the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund, in addition to Social Security.
Fadness said at least two public meetings were held with FFD and FPD concerning the matter. The Hamilton County Professional Fire Fighters have since endorsed reorganization.
Bosma disputes City Yes’ position on the matter, arguing that examples the group used in its Freedom of Information Act request entered their employees into a “’new employment category’” – eliminating the need to alert the Social Security Administration.
Current inquired with PERF for more information and was directed to the Indiana Public Retirement System.
Communication Manager Jodi O’Neill told Current that the Social Security Administration will make the determination if the reorganized city will be able to get out of its 218 Agreement.