CONCORD — The state Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling and denied a challenge regarding state funding to the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS).

In a ruling issued Friday, the court denied a motion for summary judgement requested by the City of Concord and a group of communities over pension funding for firefighters, police officers and teachers. The Legislature has gradually reduced state contributions over the past few years and voted in 2011 to require local political subdivisions to fund NHRS entirely beginning in fiscal year 2013.

Jeff Spear, a Concord attorney representing the challengers, said the lack of state contributions creates an unfunded mandate in violation of an article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Local governments are required to contribute to the fund, but the state does not.

“The state can't impose new or modified responsibilities or obligations unless paid for or local governments agree and consent,” said Spear, referring to Article 28-a of the state Constitution. “I'm very disappointed. I think the majority got it badly wrong.”

A lower court ruled in favor of the state in April 2011 and two months later denied a motion for reconsideration.

Concord, Belknap County and the Mascenic Regional School District appealed to the Supreme Court, which again sided with the state in an opinion issued Friday, saying a state law referred to as Section 52, an amendment to reduce state contributions.

“As the trial court accurately noted, and the state now asserts, Section 52 does not modify this requirement or change any underlying activity of function,” Justice Robert Lynn wrote in Friday's decision. “Rather, it merely shifts the financial obligation for funding NHRS from the State to the local subdivisions without altering any underlying activities.”

Chief Justice Linda Stewart Dalianis and Justice Gary E. Hicks concurred.

Justice Carol Ann Conboy was the lone dissenter, noting teachers, firefighters and police officers employed by local governments are required to participate in NHRS as a condition of employment.

“The local governments thus do not have the option to withdraw these employees from NHRS and as their employers, may not decline to contribute to its funding,” Conboy wrote in her dissenting argument. “The effect of Section 52, therefore, is to impose additional financial expenditures on local governments that have no choice to comply. Article 28-a was adopted by the citizens of this state for the purpose of preventing precisely the action mandated by Section 52.”

Only four of the five Supreme Court judges considered the case because the newest member, Jim Bassett, argued for the appellants in March, before he was appointed to the court.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge, who wrote the brief against the appeal, said the state was obviously pleased with the final ruling.

“The state's highest court has spoken now on this issue,” Mavrogeorge said.

dalden@unionleader.com