Committee Summary for House Ways and Means (04/15/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB60 00:06:20.720 - 9:04:26 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to advanced deposit account wagering and the department of health and human services' rulemaking authority regarding immunization requirements.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB73 00:39:31.599 - 9:37:37 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the operation of bingo games.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB83 01:16:04.600 - 10:14:10 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to licenses for primary and secondary game operators.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB147 03:25:56.800 - 12:24:02 PM	Public Hearing	relative to licenses to sell pari-mutuel pools on simulcast horse races.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB160 03:51:01.720 - 12:49:07 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the administration of raffles.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
Unclear 04:06:15.040 - 1:04:21 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

SB60: Senator Tim Lang, Senate District 2, Lakes Region Support00:06:20.720 - 9:04:26 AM; Senator Lang introduced Senate Bill 60, which aims to explicitly allow advanced deposit wagering on horse racing online in New Hampshire. He explained that the state has a prohibition on gaming unless explicitly allowed, and this bill would regulate the online betting process and set a tax rate of 1.25%, which aligns with the in-person betting tax rate at Seabrook and Belmont, the two locations currently grandfathered in for in-person betting. Lang emphasized that the bill is straightforward and seeks to extend an existing state policy of in-person betting to online platforms.
SB60: Representative Opel Information Only00:08:21.680 - 9:06:27 AM; Representative Opel inquired about the tax rate of 1.25% and its comparison to other New England states, questioning if it was too low. Senator Lang responded that his goal was not to increase taxes but to align the online tax rate with the existing in-person rate within the state.
SB60: Representative M Information Only00:09:31.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Representative M asked about the possibility of the bill allowing front money for casino gambling. Senator Lang clarified that the bill specifically deals with paramutual betting on horse racing under Chapter 284, not casino gambling under Chapter 287, and thus does not allow front money for casino gambling.
SB60: Representative Opel Information Only00:12:09.600 - 9:10:15 AM; Representative Opel asked about geographical restrictions on the use of the betting platform, specifically if there would be geo-fencing similar to Powerball ticket sales. Senator Lang confirmed that there would be geo-fencing to ensure betting occurs within New Hampshire, referencing a previous legal victory against federal restrictions.
SB60: Peter Bragdon, Senior Policy Adviser with Py Strategies, representing Churchill Downs Support00:13:59.760 - 9:12:05 AM; Peter Bragdon supported Senate Bill 60, explaining that Churchill Downs, known for the Kentucky Derby, has been operating an advanced deposit wagering platform named Twin Spires. He detailed the history and regulation of advanced deposit wagering under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, and emphasized the need for the bill to clear up regulatory gray areas in New Hampshire. Bragdon noted that Churchill Downs voluntarily stopped its platform in New Hampshire in 2022 due to regulatory concerns, despite other operators continuing to function. He argued that the bill would level the playing field, provide consumer protection, and clarify regulations without affecting past activities. Bragdon also addressed previous opposition from Representative Ducet, clarifying misunderstandings about where bets are legally accepted and the applicability of the Interstate Horse Racing Act.
SB60: Representative Opel Information Only00:23:36.000 - 9:21:42 AM; Representative Opel expressed confusion regarding the interplay between the federal law of 1978 and the proposed bill SB60. He sought clarification on whether remote betting would be permitted regardless of the state's adoption of the bill and questioned the potential legal discrepancies highlighted by former Representative Ducet and possibly the Attorney General.
SB60: Peter Bragdon, Senior Policy Adviser with Py Strategies, representing Churchill Downs Information Only00:24:23.600 - 9:22:29 AM; Peter Bragdon continued to provide detailed information on the tax rates for Churchill Downs in Oregon compared to other states. He explained that Oregon has one of the lowest tax rates, which attracts many platforms. He also discussed the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, noting its preemptive nature and the gray areas it creates for state regulation. He mentioned that the bill aims to clarify and legalize the activity to provide consumer protection. Additionally, he clarified that historic horse racing machines are not covered by the 1978 Act and that the bill specifically addresses advanced deposit wagering (ADW) on horse racing, not affecting other forms of betting like sports betting. He also addressed concerns about the impact of the bill on historic horse racing facilities, stating no negative effects are expected as the demographics and platforms are different.
SB60: Representative Wars Information Only00:27:41.279 - 9:25:47 AM; Representative Wars asked about the payment methods used for advanced deposit wagering, to which it was clarified that an advanced deposit is required, meaning users must set up an account and deposit money before placing bets.
SB60: Charlie McIntyre, Lottery Director Information Only00:29:01.520 - 9:27:07 AM; Charlie McIntyre, the Lottery Director, confirmed Peter Bragdon's statements and provided additional context. He likened the situation to when DraftKings and FanDuel operated fantasy sports, which were seen as operating in a legal gray area due to the potential for winning money from sports-related activities.
SB60: Representative Shamburgg Information Only00:30:16.799 - 9:28:22 AM; Representative Shamburgg asked the Lottery Director, Charlie McIntyre, about the specifics of the bill concerning fantasy sports regulation. He inquired about the necessity of a wholly-owned subsidiary of a publicly traded company to be listed for betting purposes. McIntyre clarified that financial audits were required for licensed companies, especially if they are publicly traded, to avoid redundant audits. Shamburgg also asked about the reporting structure for rule violations, to which McIntyre explained that the Lottery would handle violations as the regulator, and that current activities lack regulation, making industry oversight challenging.
SB60: Charlie McIntyre, Lottery Director Support00:31:30.320 - 9:29:36 AM; Charlie McIntyre continued his testimony, addressing Representative Shamburgg's questions. He explained the regulation of fantasy sports and the current bill's alignment with past legislative efforts. McIntyre detailed the reporting structure for violations, emphasizing the need for regulation and the current unregulated state of the industry. He also discussed customer safeguards and the access to the wagers list, stating that the operators would maintain the list, and the Lottery would only access it upon receiving a complaint.
SB60: Representative Opel Information Only00:33:58.720 - 9:32:04 AM; Representative Opel asked McIntyre about the activities of neighboring states regarding online gaming, specifically mentioning the absence of operating tracks in New England. McIntyre mentioned that regulations vary widely across states and that New Hampshire's model was designed to mirror the revenue share model of brick-and-mortar operations. Opel also inquired about past legislative efforts and the specifics of the current bill, to which McIntyre provided historical context and operational details.
SB60: Charlie McIntyre, Lottery Director Support00:35:07.040 - 9:33:13 AM; Charlie McIntyre responded to Representative Opel's questions about neighboring states' regulations and the specifics of the bill. He explained the variation in state regulations and the intention behind New Hampshire's model. McIntyre also addressed the operational details of the bill, including the transition from previous legislative efforts and the current operators in the state.
SB73: Senator Tim Lang, Senate District 2 Support00:39:31.599 - 9:37:37 AM; Senator Tim Lang introduced SB73, which was requested by the bingo industry to revert the number of balls needed for a coverall from 50 back to 49. He explained that the original bill also included a provision to increase the prize limit from $4,000 to $6,000, but this was removed due to opposition from smaller bingo halls. Lang supported the withdrawal of the prize increase to ensure industry consensus on the bill, focusing solely on the coverall number change.
SB73: Representative Elme Information Only00:41:46.960 - 9:39:52 AM; Representative Elme sought clarification on the term 'coverall' and confirmed that it means covering all numbers on a bingo card within 49 or fewer balls. He also asked about the disagreement within the bingo industry regarding the change in the coverall number and the potential impact on smaller halls.
SB73: Representative Elme Information Only00:42:37.760 - 9:40:43 AM; Representative Elme discussed the amendments made to SB73, specifically addressing the agreement among bingo halls regarding the changes except for the sections concerning the total value of prizes. He explained the modernization of the prize limit from $4,000 to $6,000, which faced disagreement from smaller bingo halls. He supported a floor amendment by Senator Sullivan that adjusted the bill due to lack of universal agreement among operators on the prize amount.
SB73: Representative Almy Information Only00:43:46.720 - 9:41:52 AM; Representative Almy sought clarification on the coverall game mechanics, specifically how the second chance coverall works and how the prizes are predetermined and paid from the accumulated carryover. The discussion touched on the functionality of pregame and postgame wins to enhance the gaming experience.
SB73: Representative M Information Only00:45:49.599 - 9:43:55 AM; Representative M discussed the implications of changing the coverall number from 50 to 49, questioning whether it would lead to higher jackpots due to increased difficulty, and if this aligns with the bill's intent to attract more players.
SB73: Representative Sworth Information Only00:46:47.760 - 9:44:53 AM; Representative Sworth, as a former coverall winner, asked about the specifics of the coverall game mechanics, particularly about the use of two 5x5 bingo cards and the continuation of the game after a winner.
SB73: Representative Ali Information Only00:47:35.880 - 9:45:41 AM; Representative Ali inquired about the number and locations of remaining bingo halls in New Hampshire, with mention of specific locations like Laconia, Concord, Hudson, Manchester, and Keene. They also asked about betting limits in comparison to establishments in Connecticut.
SB73: Representative Bill Bolton Support00:48:45.200 - 9:46:51 AM; Representative Bill Bolton from Grafton County House District 8, representing Plymouth, Ashland, and Holderness, introduced amendment number 2025-147H. The amendment aims to set the total value of prizes at $5,000, a compromise between the current $4,000 and the previously proposed $6,000. He mentioned the lack of increase in prize values for 17 years and hoped this amendment would be acceptable to the Senate.
SB73: Rhonda Lane, Wolverine Youth Football Association Support00:54:31.680 - 9:52:37 AM; Rhonda Lane from the Wolverine Youth Football Association in Hudson supported the carryover coverall clarification to 49 numbers and the proposed increase in prize limits from $4,000 to $5,000. She disagreed with claims that this increase would negatively impact smaller halls, citing her experience in Windham. She emphasized the need for increased prize money due to rising operational costs post-COVID, and the competitive pressures from new gaming facilities in the area.
SB73: Rhonda Lane, Wolverine Youth Football Association Support00:54:31.680 - 9:52:37 AM; Rhonda Lane from the Wolverine Youth Football Association expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of increasing the prize limit to support their outreach programs. They mentioned that the funds are used for grants and donations to various local nonprofits, including homeless shelters, food pantries, Special Olympics, Meals on Wheels, and community centers. Lane indicated a willingness to compromise on the prize limit, suggesting $5,000 as a minimum but expressing a preference for $6,000 to allow for promotional gaming nights. They clarified that their intention is not to take players away from smaller halls but to enhance their own offerings.
SB73: Mike McGloin, representing Community Bingo in Manchester Information Only01:00:50.680 - 9:58:56 AM; Mike McGloin, a lawyer and lobbyist representing Community Bingo in Manchester, expressed comfort with the bill as passed by the Senate but was surprised by the amendment. He noted that the bingo community is driven by the internet, with players chasing carryover coverall prizes. McGloin supported the bill's core aspect of reducing the number of balls to 49 but expressed concerns about the amendment to increase the nightly prize limit from $4,000 to $5,000 or $6,000, citing potential difficulties for smaller halls. He mentioned that the carryover coverall is separate from the nightly prize limit and emphasized the need for further discussion with his client regarding the amendment.
SB73: Chris Meltree, representing Marian Garish in Derry Support01:03:56.000 - 10:02:02 AM; Chris Meltree, representing Marian Garish in Derry, supported the bill and addressed concerns about the carryover and the number of balls. He clarified that the carryover games have been in existence for a decade and that reducing the number of balls to 49 is widely supported. Meltree argued for increasing the prize limit, citing competition from casinos and card rooms, and mentioned that the current $4,000 limit includes non-cash prizes like turkeys. He emphasized the need for a competitive edge to attract players and mentioned that other states have no limit on prizes.
SB73: Dick Ble, representing Diamond Distributors in Concord Support01:08:50.080 - 10:06:56 AM; Dick Ble, a registered lobbyist representing Diamond Distributors in Concord, supported the bill as passed by the Senate. He mentioned that the amendment to reduce the prize limit back to $4,000 was introduced on the floor. Ble advocated for a compromise at $5,000, noting that it had been 17 years since the last change. He emphasized the social aspect of bingo and the need to keep it competitive with other forms of gambling to prevent it from becoming a dying activity.
SB73: Valerie King, Lottery representative Information Only01:11:43.679 - 10:09:49 AM; Valerie King from the Lottery provided information on the distribution of bingo halls in New Hampshire. She noted that there are approximately 10 to 12 active licensed commercial bingo halls, primarily located in the southern part of the state, including Manchester, Nashua, Enfield, Epsom, Claremont, Dover, Laconia, Rochester, Newton, and Hudson. King clarified that charities can run bingo at their own facilities without a license, which are typically smaller and less frequent. She could not provide data on the age demographics of bingo players.
SB83: Senator Tim Lang Information Only01:16:04.600 - 10:14:10 AM; Senator Tim Lang discussed Senate Bill 83, which focuses on gambling and has a companion bill in the House. He highlighted the differences between his bill and the House version, particularly the tax rate, which is set at 32.5% in his bill compared to 30% in the House bill. He explained the distribution of the gross gaming revenue (GGR), with 35% going to charitable gaming organizations, 25% to the education trust fund, and the remaining state portion split equally between the education fund and a new fund for elderly, disabled, deaf, and blind tax credit reimbursements. Additionally, he mentioned a self-exclusion database component aimed at addressing problem gaming across the state.
SB83: Representative Shambury Information Only01:21:13.280 - 10:19:19 AM; Representative Shambury asked Senator Lang about the bill's provisions, specifically regarding the distribution of funds under the lottery commission and the reimbursement mechanism for the elderly, disabled, deaf, and blind tax credits. He sought clarification on whether the reimbursement would be full or prorated based on the available funds, and questioned a reference to a deleted RSA section that was reestablished in the bill.
SB83: Senator Tim Lang Information Only01:23:59.280 - 10:22:05 AM; Senator Lang clarified the reestablishment of the RSA section and the funding mechanism for the elderly, disabled, deaf, and blind tax credit reimbursement fund. He mentioned that the bill's standalone passage would not be signed by the governor without tying the revenue to the group two fix, a priority for the governor. He recommended holding the bill until the outcome of HB2, which contains similar provisions, is known.
SB83: Representative SWorth Information Only01:27:15.040 - 10:25:21 AM; Representative SWorth expressed concerns about the impact of various bills on the education trust fund, including Senate Bill 83. He sought a clearer understanding of the overall effect on the fund for the upcoming years, given the numerous changes and shifts in funding proposed across different bills. He suggested the need for a comprehensive summary to understand the net effect on the education trust fund.
SB83: Senator Tim Lang Information Only01:28:19.199 - 10:26:25 AM; Senator Lang responded to Representative SWorth's concerns by explaining that the Senate leadership had reviewed the budget and surplus with the LBA, providing a handle on the shifting funds. He noted that some policy changes, like the advanced deposit wagering, would positively impact the education trust fund, although not accounted for in the budget. He acknowledged the complexity and ongoing nature of understanding the full impact on the education trust fund.
SB83: Representative Elmy Information Only01:31:01.040 - 10:29:07 AM; Representative Elmy expressed the need for a side-by-side comparison between Senate Bill 83 and relevant parts of HB2 to better understand the implications on the education trust fund, particularly concerned about the potential reduction of funds available for public schools.
SB83: Senator L Information Only01:31:55.080 - 10:30:01 AM; Senator L provided a detailed explanation regarding the use of lottery funds under the state constitution. He clarified that the constitution specifies that revenues from lottery activities like Powerball, Mega Bucks, and scratch tickets must be used for public education. However, he distinguished between the lottery activities and the agency, noting that other forms of gambling such as horse racing and charitable gaming are not subject to the same constitutional restrictions. He also discussed the historical context of combining different commissions into one, emphasizing that this does not change the constitutional requirement for lottery activity revenues.
SB83: Representative M Information Only01:34:51.840 - 10:32:57 AM; Representative M discussed a conversation with a former chief justice about the use of lottery funds, indicating that the issue is a gray area until challenged in court. He supported Senator L's point about the distinction between the lottery activity and the agency, agreeing that while lottery activity funds are constitutionally bound, other funds managed by the lottery agency might have more flexibility in their use.
SB83: Representative Information Only01:35:47.840 - 10:33:53 AM; The representative thanked Senator L for his explanation and humorously noted his disappointment about the budget passing comment. He questioned if the legislation aimed to enrich the general court or benefit the elderly and disabled, to which Senator L responded by referencing past budget issues and affirming the intent to benefit eligible elderly, deaf, and blind individuals without burdening other taxpayers.
SB83: Representative Spar Information Only01:36:54.880 - 10:35:00 AM; Representative Spar discussed the potential accumulation of funds in the elderly and disabled fund, suggesting that if revenues exceed needs, the legislature could decide to expand reimbursements or use the funds differently. He anticipated that initially, the fund might be prorated but could eventually cover full amounts as revenues grow.
SB83: Representative Elmy Information Only01:37:50.159 - 10:35:56 AM; Representative Elmy raised concerns about towns giving varying levels of elderly credits, some very minimal due to financial constraints. He worried that if towns realize they can get full reimbursement, more would offer elderly credits, potentially leading to a scenario similar to the research and development tax credit where demand outstripped available funds. He viewed this as a potential shell game but acknowledged that receiving partial reimbursement is better than none, benefiting more citizens.
SB83: Representative Opel Information Only01:39:31.840 - 10:37:37 AM; Representative Opel referenced the budget issues of 2017 and 2018, but his testimony was cut off in the provided transcript.
SB83: Unknown Information Only01:40:39.280 - 10:38:45 AM; The speaker, potentially a journalist, raised concerns about public perception regarding the lottery's purpose. They questioned whether the public understands the distinction between lottery funds and other gambling activities, suggesting that this might be an area of confusion. They mentioned their experience covering the legislature 40 years ago and highlighted the entrenched belief that lottery funds support public education.
SB83: Unknown Information Only01:41:27.639 - 10:39:33 AM; The speaker continued the discussion on public understanding of lottery funds, noting that even legislators might not fully grasp the nuances. They suggested that the committee should focus on doing what is right rather than getting caught up in supposition. The chair interrupted, stating that such questions might be better suited for legal experts and that the public hearing was not the place to resolve these issues.
SB83: Dan Magcguire, Epsom Oppose01:43:03.360 - 10:41:09 AM; Representative Dan Magcguire from Epsom expressed opposition to certain aspects of Senate Bill 83. He discussed the conflict between SB83 and House Bill 2, particularly regarding the allocation of lottery funds. Magcguire objected to the programmed spending in SB83, advocating for all lottery money to go directly into adequate education payments as per the state's constitution. He criticized the bill's proposal to use 25% of video lottery terminal revenue for tax exemptions, arguing that such spending should come from the general fund. He suggested that the committee should retain the bill and make a decision on the percentage of revenue from video lottery terminals, and requested the bill be made an early bill to influence the budget process before the May 8th deadline.
SB83: Unknown Information Only01:52:58.159 - 10:51:04 AM; The speaker acknowledged the time constraints in processing the bill before the May 8th deadline, noting that it would be challenging to get everything done in time. They mentioned the need for a comparison document if the bill were to be retained, indicating a complex process ahead.
SB83: Pat Brammy, former state rep and former chair of the Charitable Gaming Commission Information Only01:53:37.000 - 10:51:43 AM; Pat Brammy provided a detailed comparison of revenue distribution from various gambling bills, including the House bill, Senate bill, and the Governor's proposal on HB2. He distributed a handout that summarized the revenue splits for different gambling mechanisms like historic racing machines (HHR) and video lottery devices (referred to as slot machines). He noted that the Senate bill proposes 67.5% to facilities, 11.375% to charities, and various percentages to other funds like the education trust fund and general fund. He discussed the potential benefits for charities and the state under different scenarios, and touched on the costs associated with different gambling machines. Brammy also addressed the issue of voluntary statewide self-exclusion for problem gaming, which he supports. He raised a concern about the constitutional implications of reallocating funds traditionally considered as lottery revenue, questioning whether a change in the name to State Lottery and Gaming Commission might necessitate further constitutional clarity. He suggested possibly seeking a Supreme Court opinion on this matter but acknowledged the precedent set over the last nine years.
SB83: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:07:26.599 - 11:05:32 AM; The speaker discusses the comparison between historic racing machines and slot machines in different states, highlighting the difficulty in normalizing data to understand the state's revenue share versus other stakeholders. They mention a report by consultants which revised the additional cost estimates for totalizer systems from 12-18% to 6-18%. The speaker suggests a potential adjustment in the revenue share from 75% down to 70% or 67.5%, emphasizing the challenge in obtaining clear, comparable data across states.
SB83: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:11:00.280 - 11:09:06 AM; The speaker raises concerns about the distribution of charitable gaming revenue, suggesting that casinos should be allowed to support more charities, specifically mentioning increasing from two to possibly four or six charities per casino. They highlight the issue of larger facilities like those in Nashua, which have merged and reduced the number of charities benefiting from gaming revenue. The speaker also mentions the ongoing work of a commission tasked with addressing these issues, including problem gaming, and emphasizes the need for immediate action.
SB83: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:15:11.840 - 11:13:17 AM; The speaker discusses the lack of attention to problem gaming in the current legislative proposals, noting that there is no specific allocation for problem gaming in SB83, unlike in HB2. They mention a previous report on problem gaming and stress the need to define what is wanted before determining funding. They also discuss the debate between creating a special fund versus addressing it through the regular budget process, pointing out the differences between the House and Senate approaches.
SB83: Alicia Preston, New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association Support02:18:28.318 - 11:16:34 AM; Alicia Preston represents the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association and expresses general support for SB83. She notes some differences in language between HB2 and SB83, particularly around definitions for wide area progressive link, high stakes tournament, and prizes. She offers to work with the committee to address these differences if they move forward with the bill.
SB83: Charlie McIntyre, Lottery Director Information Only02:20:37.520 - 11:18:43 AM; Charlie McIntyre, the Lottery Director, responds to questions about the fiscal note related to SB83, indicating that the current fiscal note is outdated and that he would provide updated revenue estimates at a future work session. He also discusses the revenue share model proposed to fund initiatives like police and fire retirement, stating no changes to that recommendation but offering to provide more data on operator terms and taxation rates.
SB147: Senator Lang Information Only03:25:56.800 - 12:24:02 PM; Senator Lang introduced Senate Bill 147, which aims to expand the eligibility for simulcast horse racing betting to all game of chance license holders in New Hampshire. He explained that the bill does not mandate participation but allows any eligible gaming operator to offer simulcast betting if they choose to. He noted that currently, only The Brook in Seabrook is actively providing these services due to the grandfathered clause that limits it to former horse and greyhound track locations. He clarified that the bill is permissive and not expected to see widespread adoption but aims to level the playing field among gaming operators.
SB147: Representative Information Only03:27:55.200 - 12:26:01 PM; The representative asked about the payout structure for simulcast racing, specifically whether the betting pool is local or national. Senator Lang clarified that it is a national pool, where bettors participate with others across the country in the same race.
SB147: Representative Opel Information Only03:28:49.439 - 12:26:55 PM; Representative Opel expressed confusion about the bill's text, particularly regarding the removal of language related to holding actual horse races and the focus on simulcast betting. Senator Lang explained that the bill does not prohibit horse racing but aims to expand where paramutual betting can occur beyond just racetrack locations.
SB147: Representative Maloy Information Only03:29:34.800 - 12:27:40 PM; Representative Maloy inquired about the fiscal impact note of the bill, which was reported as indeterminable. Senator Lang agreed, stating that the impact would depend on which facilities choose to participate, making it impossible to predict accurately.
SB147: Representative Information Only03:30:35.600 - 12:28:41 PM; The representative asked about the origin of the fiscal note, which Senator Lang confirmed was drafted by the Lottery Commission. The note indicated an indeterminable impact due to the voluntary nature of participation by gaming facilities.
SB147: Representative Opel Information Only03:31:36.880 - 12:29:42 PM; Representative Opel asked if any current license holders had shown interest in expanding to simulcast betting. Senator Lang responded that interest varied, with some showing interest, some indifferent, and some opposed, indicating a lukewarm reception overall.
SB147: Representative Roman Information Only03:32:45.040 - 12:30:51 PM; Representative Roman questioned whether the bill's language would need amendment if someone were to start a new racetrack in New Hampshire. Senator Lang believed the existing language would suffice, as horse racing is already legal, and the bill focuses on expanding where paramutual betting can occur.
SB147: Mike Cataldo, Vice President at the Brook Casino in Seabrook, New Hampshire Oppose03:36:04.680 - 12:34:10 PM; Mike Cataldo, representing the Brook Casino in Seabrook, New Hampshire, testified against SB147. He argued that the bill would allow facilities that operate charitable casinos and historical horse racing machines to apply for a license to sell paramutual pools on simulcast horse races, which historically were only permitted at four track locations in New Hampshire that had previously held live racing. Cataldo emphasized that the Brook, being the only facility maintaining its simulcast licensing through continuous operation, has faced significant challenges and declines in business. He expressed concerns about the bill potentially allowing competitors without historical ties to live racing to gain similar rights, which he believes would unjustly dilute the Brook's business and impact the jobs of union employees with long-term experience. He highlighted the Brook's significant investments and its role as a good community partner, urging the committee not to pass SB147.
SB147: Charlie McIntyre, Val Kang with the Lottery Information Only03:45:25.359 - 12:43:31 PM; Charlie McIntyre from Val Kang, associated with the Lottery, discussed the difference between Senate Bill 60 and SB147 in terms of wagering. He explained that under SB147, wagers would be placed in-state at physical locations such as The Brook in Seabrook, Manchester, or Nashua, and payments would also be made in-state. He highlighted the use of data centers in Atlanta, Georgia, and Ohio, and mentioned the upcoming use of cloud technology for scalability. McIntyre also addressed concerns about New Hampshire residents sending wagers outside the state, stating that the state's obligation is to regulate operators to ensure all wagering is done appropriately, including monthly reconciliations with The Brook.
SB147: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:48:52.760 - 12:46:58 PM; An unnamed speaker asked about the conditions for licenses mentioned in the archives of the Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission. It was clarified that current eligibility for licenses is outlined in RSA 284, which specifies that applicants must have operated a racetrack by 2009. Only Belmont and The Brook remain operational under these conditions. The speaker also inquired about any archival information on license conditions, to which it was responded that such archives might be available at the library since they were not transferred when the commission was absorbed.
SB160: Senator Tim Lang Support03:51:01.720 - 12:49:07 PM; Senator Tim Lang introduced Senate Bill 160, which aims to modernize regulations related to raffles at bingo games. The bill proposes to remove the requirement for raffle tickets to be sold sequentially, allowing for more practical sales methods. It also increases the maximum price of a single raffle ticket from $1 to $10, and raises the maximum prize value from $500 to $1,200. Additionally, the bill removes the requirement for charities to be physically present during bingo games, aligning with changes previously made for other games of chance. Lang emphasized that these changes were requested by the industry and faced no objections in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
SB160: Representative Elme Information Only03:53:06.319 - 12:51:12 PM; Representative Elme sought clarification on the language of SB160, particularly regarding the sale of multiple tickets and the maximum price per ticket. Senator Lang explained that the bill allows for the sale of a single ticket up to $10, or multiple tickets at a lower price, but the total price for any one ticket cannot exceed $10. Elme also asked about the prize limits, to which Lang clarified that the total prize amount for any single raffle cannot exceed $1,200, but multiple raffles could be held with different prizes.
SB160: Representative Opel Information Only03:55:55.680 - 12:54:01 PM; Representative Opel expressed concerns about the pricing structure of raffle tickets under SB160, specifically regarding bulk discounts. Senator Lang responded that selling multiple tickets at a discounted rate that exceeds $10 per ticket would violate the proposed section, but individual tickets could still be sold for up to $10 each.
SB160: Representative Albert Information Only03:57:04.840 - 12:55:10 PM; Representative Albert sought clarification on whether the $10 limit for raffle tickets applies only to raffles held in conjunction with bingo games or to all raffles. It was confirmed that the limit applies specifically to raffles at bingo games, as per RSA 28788, which is the section being amended.
SB160: Representative Charlie Information Only03:58:06.640 - 12:56:12 PM; Representative Charlie inquired about the $1,200 limit in relation to federal tax reporting thresholds for lottery winnings. It was noted that for raffles, the tax reporting requirement (W2G) applies to winnings of $1,200 after subtracting the cost of the ticket, which explains the $1,200 limit in the bill.
SB160: Representative Shamber Information Only03:59:03.199 - 12:57:09 PM; Representative Shamber asked if the argument about the $6,000 limit affecting small bingo centers, as discussed with Senate Bill 73, would apply to this bill. It was clarified that the $1,200 limit in SB160 was supported by all, including smaller bingo operations, during the hearing.
SB160: Charlie McIntyre and Val King from the Lottery Information Only04:00:14.840 - 12:58:20 PM; Charlie McIntyre and Val King clarified that while the lottery regulates bingo, it does not regulate raffles. They confirmed that the tax reporting requirement for raffles is $1,200 in winnings after subtracting the ticket cost, aligning with the bill's limit. They also noted that prizes in raffles do not have to be cash.
SB160: Mr. Wentworth from Diamond Distributors Support04:03:27.199 - 1:01:33 PM; Mr. Wentworth from Diamond Distributors, representing sellers of raffle tickets in New Hampshire, supported the bill. He explained that the law needed updating and enforcement would be by the Attorney General's office, not the lottery. He noted that the bill applies only to raffles at bingo games and that larger halls could reach the $1,200 prize limit, which is split between the charity and the winner.
SB160: Representative Elme Information Only04:05:28.000 - 1:03:34 PM; Representative Elme asked about the legality of raffles at street fairs, which was clarified as legal with a town license, distinguishing them from the raffles at bingo games covered by the bill.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only04:06:15.040 - 1:04:21 PM; The Committee Chair discussed upcoming business, including requesting a side-by-side comparison of HB2 and SB83, and mentioned an updated surplus statement from LBAO. They also planned a field trip to the Nashua casino, discussing potential dates and logistics, including carpooling and bus options. The chair proposed Wednesday, April 23rd, or Wednesday, May 7th, at 11 a.m. for the visit. They also planned to have a work session and executive session on SB63 and SB83 on Tuesday, April 22nd.
Unclear: Jen Information Only04:17:17.720 - 1:15:23 PM; Jen responded to a question about specific information people are seeking, indicating that there are indeed specific inquiries. She mentioned following up on Representative Olm's comment regarding hiring practices from Laconia and Lawrence instead of Nashua, questioning the sourcing of employees and the specific efforts made in Nashua to hire locally.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:18:04.840 - 1:16:10 PM; The speaker provided insights into the hiring practices, noting that most of the employees, including a restaurant manager from Epsom, were found through internet advertising. They explained that the hiring was regional due to low unemployment in Nashua, suggesting that local demand might influence hiring practices.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only04:18:54.560 - 1:17:00 PM; The Committee Chair concluded the discussion, expressing openness to understanding operational aspects and thanked everyone for their participation.

Janigian, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2025	Ohm, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Ulery, Jordan(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
Almy, Susan(D)[F]2025	Oppel, Thomas(D)[F]2025	Smith, Steven(R)[B]2025
Malloy, Dennis(D)[CT]2025	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2025	Southworth, Thomas(D)[F]2025
Tierney, James(R)[B]2025	Cole, Brian(R)[A-]2025	Aures, Cyril(R)[B+]2025
Bolton, Bill(D)[F]2025	Elberger, Susan(D)[F]2025	Smith, Geoffrey(D)[D-]2025
Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2025	Spahr, Terry(D)[D-]2025	Bryer, Scott(R)[B]2025
Murphy, Mary(R)[B+]2025	Ford, Mary(R)[B+]2025