Groups representing New Hampshire's cities and towns and school boards are preparing to challenge the state's downshifting of public employee retirement costs.

The Legislature reduced the state's share of retirement costs this year. Unless courts find lawmakers went beyond the bounds of the New Hampshire Constitution, taxpayers from one end of the state to the other will be saddled with additional property taxes.

The state is in crisis — fiscal crisis. Gov. John Lynch and the state's lawmakers spent most of the first half of this year trying to balance the budget. Their success will be judged by the accuracy of revenue estimates.

The state is being duplicitous in shifting the cost of state government onto the backs of local taxpayers. The Legislature has performed in a manner with which it is most comfortable — shift the burden onto someone else's back.

Let city councils, town meetings and school boards suffer the part of the blame for which the state is responsible.

The Legislature amended the sharing of public employees' retirement costs. Instead of the state continuing to pay 35 percent of the retirement costs, the Legislature reduced the state's share to 30 percent. But that's only the beginning. On July 1, 2010, the state's share will be reduced to 25 percent, with communities and school districts paying an additional 5 percent.

New Hampshire government is a fiscal train wreck waiting to happen and the engineers at the Statehouse seem determined to maximize the casualties.

Cities and towns will have to fill in the gap created by the Legislature. Why? Because retirement benefits are negotiated — and the chance of public employees unions agreeing to a cuts in retirement benefits representing 5 percent of the cost is as remote as is the Legislature acting in a general manner that benefits all the people of New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association, the New Hampshire Association of Counties and the New Hampshire School Boards Association are expected to file a lawsuit on behalf of the state's cities and towns and school districts.

"We believe we must start legal proceedings against the state in order to challenge this unconstitutional action and stop the downshifting of state obligations to local governments," said John Andrews, the executive director of the Local Government Center, home to the New Hampshire Municipal Association, HealthTrust, Property-Liability Trust and Workers' Compensation Trust.

Andrews has been reported as saying the Legislature shifted more than $117 million in costs to local governments this year.

If the courts fail to declare the downshifting of a portion of public employees' retirement costs unconstitutional, the legislative action will cost local taxpayers $9 million in the first year and $12 million in the second — a total of $27 million in the 2010-2011 biennium —. Higher property taxes and/or reduced services for everyone.

The New Hampshire Retirement System serves 50,00 active public employees — state, county and local — and 20,000 retirees.

There are lawmakers who pride themselves on what they claim to have accomplished during the first half of 2009. How proud are they of transferring $117 million onto the backs of local government and people who are least able to pay?

The legislative motto this year seems to have been: "What, me worry?" — unless revenue estimates collapse during the next six months, or the NHMA and others win their case.