Proposed bill wants Gunstock to increase revenue shared with Belknap County

CONCORD — Members of the House Municipal and County Government Committee asked probing questions about House Bill 1414, which would increase Gunstock Mountain Resort’s financial obligation to Belknap County and put into statute regulations already in place at the policy level.

Rep. Barbara Comtois (R-Center Barnstead), prime sponsor of the bill, told the committee on Jan. 30 the changes are necessary because policies can change, and increasing Gunstock’s contribution to the county would make up for taxpayers’ risks in having to cover defaults on financial obligations.

The bill would modify the current requirement that Gunstock pay 1.75% of gross revenues to the county, increasing that to 3%. It also would require that public meetings of the Gunstock Area Commission be recorded and posted to the resort’s website — something already required by the commissioners’ meeting policy. Finally, it would establish a requirement that Gunstock undergo a forensic audit every five years, beginning with an audit of the contentious 2021 fiscal year and reaching back five years from that date.

“The original bill [from 2022] was going to ask for 5%,” Comtois said, “and it was decided upon at that time that they would do 1.75% to get 100% buy-in. ... Several of the sponsors have now sent in letters to this committee we’re on that we’re asking for this increase because Gunstock is an asset of the county. It is the county taxpayers that own Gunstock, and it is the county taxpayers that, if Gunstock defaults on anything, it is them that has to pick up the tab.”

She said “millions of dollars” of debt to the county were forgiven in the past. Other speakers testified Gunstock has repaid all of those loans.

Defending the idea of a mandatory forensic audit, Comtois said, “Can we ask for a forensic audit of Gunstock? Yes. Is it subject to politics? Yes. Is it subject to the whim of whoever’s on the delegation? Yes.”

She noted traditional audits had not uncovered the illegal political contributions Gunstock made to gubernatorial candidates using taxpayer money.

Committee member Rep. Richard Brown (R-Moultonborough) asked, “Is the Gunstock Area meant to be a profit center for the county?”

Comtois called that “the million-dollar question.”

“It is a county-owned asset, beloved by I’d say everybody in the county,” she said. “And we want to keep it that way, but you have to understand that it is the county taxpayers that are on the hook if Gunstock ever defaults on anything.

"The county taxpayers should be the recipients when they do well, and when they don’t do well, we end up paying the bill.”

Republican Rep. Nikki McCarter (Belmont), a co-sponsor of the bill, said she did not believe 3% “is a lot to ask” when it can lower property taxes.

“I think the newspaper's up there touting how successful and wonderful Gunstock is ... if it’s truly for the benefit of Belknap County, then the profits should be sent back to the residents,” she said.

Rep. Juliet Harvey-Bolia (R-Sanbornton) argued the Belknap County Delegation should have had a chance to discuss the merits of the bill before putting it on the legislative docket, saying, “... we have not debated this issue, we haven’t discussed different percentages, and I’m not particularly opposed to changing the amount, either, but I think it’s probably the most prudent thing ... would be for us delegates to come together, discuss the changes, the pros, the cons, and how it should be dealt with over the long term.”

Rep. Tom Ploszaj (R-Center Harbor) supported forensic audits, saying it is important to catch potential fraud or embezzlement, but he would not object to changing the frequency.

“It could be amended, just so the people who are handling the money know that there’s a mechanism that’s going to ... take a look at those books,” Ploszaj said.

Michael Sylvia of Belmont, former chair of the Belknap County Delegation, spoke of the 2022 walkout by members of the resort's management team, saying, “In my mind, this comes to the level of sabotage. Gunstock was shut down because of the walkout of these people, and it threw everybody into a crisis, and they had to do something. We had to have Gunstock open.”

He said that, instead of “the man in the corner office” — Gov. Chris Sununu — offering to hire those who walked out, “he should have been talking to the attorney general. It didn’t happen; that’s why we’re here.”

Sylvia noted the illegal campaign contributions made by Gunstock president and general manager Tom Day using Gunstock funds had gone to that man in the corner office. Day is retiring after this winter season.

“Prior to him writing directly a check to the campaign of a gubernatorial candidate, they used a different system, a much more popular system, and it’s called lobbying and lobbyists,” Sylvia said. “And usually, in the past, money was filtered through Ski New Hampshire, perhaps the lobbyist who is here today sitting next to that soon-to-be-former CEO — thank God he’s retiring.”

Committee member Rep. Eric Gallager (D-Concord) asked, “In 2022, the whole Gunstock issue was a pretty major issue in the legislative elections that year. Do you think it would be fair to interpret the results of the 2022 election as a referendum of voters’ opinions on the Gunstock matter?”

Sylvia responded, “I don’t know how much you know about the media industry, and who knows, in a forensic audit, The Laconia Daily Sun payments for advertising might be looked at. But there was a campaign which had started the previous October-November with Citizens for Gunstock which then morphed into Citizens for Belknap. There was a big lobbying push on, a lot of money spent, and probably in the order of $50,000 to select certain candidates to win and replace, and naturally, I was top target because certain people don’t like me because I tell the truth.”

Gunstock Commissioner Doug Lambert testified against the bill, noting the commission is appointed by the Belknap County Delegation, with a statutory responsibility to oversee the management of Gunstock. The five-member commission “stands in unanimous opposition to the passage of House Bill 1414-FN,” he said.

Legislation, Lambert said, “should be formed with the intention of fixing a problem or responding to the needs and wishes of the majority of the public being represented. The proposed bill does neither.”

He said, “It is the opinion of the Gunstock Area Commission that the current percentage amount strikes a fair balance between providing a monetary benefit to the citizens and taxpayers of Belknap County while allowing the Gunstock Area to cover all expenses and plan for the ongoing current and future needs while remaining on the chartered course of self-sufficiency.”

With regard to the recording of meetings, Lambert said, “The commission is already governed by the relevant laws of the state of New Hampshire as they pertain to public bodies. ... Currently, through policy, our meetings are, in fact, being recorded and made available to the public on a voluntary basis. To put such a requirement into law that goes beyond that which is required of all other public bodies in the state of New Hampshire does not seem to be a necessary step.”

He added, “There is simply no need for the mandated forensic audit,” going on to say when the current commission began operation it conducted its own forensic audit, reviewing every check and addressing every issue that Comtois had raised.

“We don’t want to jeopardize all that has been achieved in the last four years,” Lambert concluded.