City of Concord v. State
164 N.H. 130
N.H.2012Background
- NHRS is a tax-qualified pension trust for police, teachers, and firefighters; local employers fund it.
- RSA 100-A:16 provides the funding method; contributions come from investment returns, employee, and employer inputs.
- From 1977–2009, localities funded 65% and the State 35% of employer contributions for NHRS-eligible employees.
- In 2009, Laws 2009, 144:52 changed the split to 70/30 in FY2010 and 75/25 in FY2011.
- Petitioners (City of Concord, Belknap County, Mascenic Regional School District) challenged section 52 as an unfunded mandate under Article 28-a.
- Trial court denied petitioners’ summary judgment, granted State’s summary judgment on the merits, and left NHRS’s motion unresolved; the appeal contested the constitutional validity of section 52.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 52 violates Article 28-a | Concord et al. contend it imposes an unfunded mandate increasing local expenditures. | State argues the change does not create a new/expanded/modified local responsibility; it shifts funding within an existing framework. | No, section 52 does not violate Article 28-a. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire Municipal Trust Workers’ Compensation Fund v. Flynn, 133 N.H. 17 (1990) (defined 'responsibility' and invalidated a new local fiscal obligation)
- Opinion of the Justices (Solid Waste Disposal), 135 N.H. 543 (1992) (no violation where no affirmative local expenditure obligation)
- Nashua School District v. State, 140 N.H. 457 (1995) (analyzed local fiscal responsibility for education costs; no new mandate)
- Town of Nelson v. N.H. Department of Transportation, 146 N.H. 75 (2001) (reclassification of highway not an unfunded mandate where preexisting responsibility existed)
- Voting Age in Primaries, 157 N.H. 265 (2008) (addressed whether new development creates mandate; not a blanket expansion)
- New Hampshire Assoc. of Counties v. State of New Hampshire, 158 N.H. 284 (2009) (realignment of funding for indigent elderly/disabled; held some aspects did not violate Article 28-a)
- Bd. of Trustees, N.H. Judicial Ret. Plan v. Sec’y of State, 161 N.H. 49 (2010) (statutory interpretation guidance related to constitutional provisions)