Cost shifting to the local level may make sense if the services are being used by, and only paid for be, certain individuals. However, the cost shifting being proposed by Kelly and MacKinnon involves shifting the state's share of public employee retirement costs to local governments and school districts.

If successful, the costs will not be paid by those who use it as you suggest.  They will be paid by all the taxpayers in the community.  In addition, the state retirement systems are operated by the state with no local government/school district input.  One of the reasons the costs are as hig as they are was a mistake made by a former state actuary.  Now certain legislators want to pass the bills off onto local communities, while giving them the option- by eliminating the mandatory $150,000 property exemption- to help defray the increased costs on the backs of seniors and disabled veterans.