Relative to the statewide education property tax and excess revenue from games of chance.
Summary
HB 234 would change how New Hampshire calculates the statewide education property tax (SWEPT). Under current law, the commissioner of the Department of Revenue Administration sets the education tax rate each year to raise a fixed $363 million, subject to a limited adjustment for an existing statutory offset. This bill would add a new offset tied to revenue from games of chance, requiring the education tax levy to be reduced by any lottery/games-of-chance revenue paid into the education trust fund above $6.6 million, which is the estimated amount received in state fiscal year 2023.
In practical terms, the bill would make the statewide education property tax rate lower in years when games-of-chance revenue exceeds that baseline. The reduction would begin July 1, 2025, and would apply prospectively to the annual rate-setting process. The bill does not directly change how games-of-chance revenue is generated; instead, it changes how that revenue interacts with the education funding formula and the amount of property tax needed to support the state’s education obligation.
Impact
HB 234 would amend RSA 76:3 and add a new RSA 76:3-a, creating a statutory mechanism that reduces the required SWEPT revenue by excess games-of-chance receipts deposited into the education trust fund. This would affect the state’s education funding calculation, municipal property tax collection for the statewide education tax, and the amount of revenue recognized in the education trust fund. Because the offset depends on future lottery/games-of-chance receipts, the fiscal effect is uncertain and could vary year to year; the fiscal note says the impact is indeterminable beyond FY 2025. Local governments would continue to collect the tax, but the statewide levy could be reduced if gaming revenue exceeds the baseline.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest the bill is framed as a tax-relief or offset measure, using gaming revenue to reduce the statewide education property tax burden. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the record supplied. The fiscal note treats the bill as potentially revenue-reducing for the education trust fund, but only if gaming revenue rises above the specified threshold.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be fiscal: whether excess games-of-chance revenue should be used to reduce the statewide education property tax or retained to support education funding at current levels. Supporters would likely emphasize property tax relief and a direct offset from gaming proceeds, while opponents may worry about reducing a stable education funding source or creating uncertainty in the education trust fund. Another issue is the bill’s reliance on an estimated 2023 baseline of $6.6 million, which could be disputed if future gaming revenues fluctuate significantly.