Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Horse Racing Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee retains bill requiring historic horse‑racing operators to pay host communities 10% mitigation
Summary
Representative John Olm proposed that historic horse‑racing facilities be required to provide 10% of ATHR winnings to host communities; the House Ways and Means Committee retained HB 660 19–0 for further work.
Representative John Olm introduced House Bill 660 during the Ways and Means Committee public hearing, proposing an amendment that would require historic horse‑racing (HHR) facilities to compensate their host communities with 10% of the ATHR winnings. “I’m here to introduce house bill 6 6 0, with an amendment requiring historic racing facilities to compensate their host communities with 10% of the ATHR winnings,” Olm said.
Olm told the committee the measure responds to the expansion of historic horse‑racing into large properties without the local “opt‑in” referendums that accompanied earlier gaming expansions. He said the amendment would make municipalities “whole” for incremental costs associated with hosting HHR enterprises while preserving payments to charities and the state by taking the 10% mitigation from the operators’ share.
Committee members asked several questions. Representative Schamburg asked why the sponsor selected 10 percent; Olm responded the figure was his chosen mitigation level and told the committee an amendment in the bill reduces the impact on charities and the state by taking the mitigation solely from the operator share. Representative Spar asked whether municipalities are already facing revenue shortfalls; Olm said municipal finance is a longstanding issue but described HB 660 as targeted mitigation for incremental costs, not a solution to broad municipal revenue problems.
Representative Doucette noted testimony the committee had previously heard describing negligible local effects from the facilities and asked whether cities had complained. Olm said municipalities had not come to him but defended the proposal as proactive, citing studies that project incremental costs emerging several years after opening.
Alicia Preston, representing the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association, testified in opposition. “We know of no other industry that is specifically, kind of targeted to say you have to pay to the municipality differently than any other business,” Preston told the committee. She argued charitable gaming facilities typically do not require more municipal services than other entertainment venues and that the sector already faces security and statutory requirements enforced by the lottery commission.
Other committee members raised local observations: Representative Elmi and others compared traffic and zoning impacts in parts of the state where gaming facilities have opened, while Representative Elberger and others questioned whether the bill applied only to new facilities or to existing ones; Olm said the bill would apply to facilities in place at the time the statute took effect and to future facilities.
After questions and statements from multiple committee members and witnesses, Representative Olm moved to retain the bill to allow further work on terms; Representative Schamburg seconded. The committee voted 19–0 to retain HB 660 for additional consideration.
The record shows four core points in the hearing: the sponsor’s requested 10% mitigation taken from operators’ shares (amendment text was provided), industry opposition citing differential treatment of charitable gaming, committee requests for evidence on municipal impacts, and a committee decision to retain the measure for additional drafting and review.
Next steps identified by members included negotiating language to preserve charitable contributions and state revenue while defining how mitigation would be collected and applied; the bill will be returned to a future executive session for action.
