Bill proposing local 'enterprise tax' on large charitable gaming facilities draws opposition from operators and municipal groups

House Bill 688 drew extended testimony and detailed questioning as committee members weighed a proposal to allow municipalities an optional new local tax on large historic horse‑racing/charitable gaming facilities.

Representative Bill Ohm (Hillsborough 10) framed the bill as a short‑term mitigation measure for host communities while the Legislature considers comprehensive casino legislation. He described a Nashua example in which converting a large retail box to a casino will materially change local costs, particularly public safety and services, and he said an optional local enterprise tax — calculated in the draft as up to twice the assessed property value for facilities meeting size thresholds — would provide a local mitigation tool until a broader scheme (historically proposals of 3% of gross slot revenue) could be enacted.

Opponents from the gaming industry, charitable gaming operators and municipal groups testified strongly against the idea. Alicia Preston, representing the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association, said she knew of no other industry in New Hampshire that municipalities may single out for an industry‑specific local tax and argued the facilities already pay property tax and other taxes; she said local services attributable to gaming facilities are generally covered by operators' private security and existing local taxes. Brad Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association also opposed the measure, arguing it would expand mandated exemptions and add reporting burdens; NHMA described uneven BTLA guidance on exemption questions in other contexts to caution against creating new, complex local tax authority.

Former Representative Pat Abrahami (who participated in multi‑stakeholder work) and other witnesses told the committee the provision as written would set an alarming precedent because the draft language appeared to tax the assessed property value at a multiplier rather than set a tax rate; Abrahami read committee materials noting the charitable gaming commission had discussed municipal host compensation in prior reviews and concluded no additional action was required at that time.

Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) staff said the draft needed clarification on whether "assessed property value" referred to the value reported on municipal property inventories (PA‑28) or some alternate measure; DRA staff also noted they would need rule‑making authority or clarifying statutory direction to implement a novel enterprise tax and asked whether the opt‑in/opt‑out mechanics were intended to be mandatory or elective for municipalities.

Lottery and gaming operators indicated facilities already contribute business taxes, rooms and meals where applicable, and other state revenue streams; operators and industry representatives objected that an enterprise tax targeted a single industry and would likely face legal and practical challenges.

Committee members asked for legal analysis on constitutionality and precedents; some said the draft's extreme numeric example (two times assessed value) looked like a drafting error. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript provided. Committee staff scheduled DRA and other briefings and indicated further work would be required to clarify definitions and implementation authority before any vote.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing after receiving testimony from industry representatives, municipal associations, DRA and others; members signaled substantial drafting and policy work remains before the committee could act.