Proposed enterprise tax on gaming facilities draws opposition from industry and municipal groups

Representative Bill Ohm presented House Bill 688, proposing a local option "enterprise tax" aimed at offsetting community costs cities and towns face when hosting large charitable gaming or historic horse racing facilities. Ohm focused on Nashua's planned large facility and cited academic literature on long‑term community costs tied to casinos — including crime and other social impacts — to justify mitigation payments to host municipalities.

Ohm said the proposal is a short‑term, stopgap way to provide mitigation to host communities while a comprehensive casino bill is lacking. The draft language would allow municipalities to levy an enterprise tax on historic racing and charitable gaming facilities with 100 or more machines; testimony characterized the tax as an amount equal to up to twice the assessed property value of the facility. Ohm estimated the measure could generate substantially more local revenue than current property assessments would yield, though opponents called the proposal punitive and constitutionally suspect.

Pat Abrahami and Alicia Preston, representing operators and the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association, opposed the bill. Preston told the committee municipal taxation targeted at a single industry is unprecedented, argued that charitable gaming facilities already pay property, business and other state taxes, and said the proposal would harm charities that rely on gaming revenue. Abrahami called the proposed tax "picking on 1 industry," said the draft language as written could yield unrealistic tax calculations, and cited the charitable gaming commission's earlier recommendation not to raise facility license fees.

Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) staff and Lottery officials attended to clarify how an "assessed property value" would be determined and whether the DRA has rulemaking or administrative authority for a new enterprise tax. DRA asked for clearer statutory language about whether the measure intended to use locally reported assessed value (the PA‑28) or another base and raised implementation questions about opt‑in/opt‑out drafting. DRA said they did not view the measure as technically impossible but would need clear base definitions and authority to implement collection procedures.

No committee vote or action was taken at the hearing; the committee received extensive testimony both for and against and several members urged further study and technical drafting before any committee recommendation.