At a meeting of the Merrimack County Board of Commissioners, a private citizen identified as Steven spoke during public comment to propose a countywide, per-capita funding approach for homeless services rather than leaving most care to Concord.

Steven said he was speaking as a private citizen and described long experience with homelessness task forces at the state and local level: “I’m appearing as a private citizen. I’ve served on 3 governors’ homelessness task force. I’ve served on the city's of Concord's task force.” He told commissioners he believes New Hampshire law requires the town where an indigent person resides to care for them, and that practice has led homeless people to congregate in Concord because services are there.

Why it matters: Steven said the current pattern places a disproportionate burden on Concord’s municipal services, including shelters and meal programs. He argued a county tax apportioned on a per-capita basis would spread the cost and reduce the incentive for small towns to rely on Concord. “The result is, unfairly, that there is a disproportionate burden on Concord,” Steven said.

Discussion: Commissioners and other meeting participants asked questions about logistics and legal risk. Commissioner Steve Sherlo asked whether a county tax would make Merrimack County a statewide hub for homeless services; Steven said that is a risk but hoped a model could be adopted by other counties. A county welfare director at the meeting said welfare directors meet quarterly and that the group helps coordinate local responses.

Proposed details and next steps: Steven said Concord’s current census of people experiencing homelessness ranges from 250 to 400 and that Concord may be short roughly 100 beds. He proposed first determining the total cost of services in Concord — for example, whether annual spending is $2 million, $4 million or $6 million — then allocating that cost by town population. He also said he has a bill pending in the legislature aimed at prohibiting camping on private property in communities over 5,000 without written permission of the landowner; he referred to the existing prohibition on camping on public property and characterized his proposal as an extension to private property enforcement for larger communities.

What was not decided: The board took no formal action on Steven’s proposal during the meeting. Steven offered to share cost estimates from Concord’s task force once available and said he was willing to work with county staff and the delegation on the idea.

Ending: Steven said he would follow up with the commissioners when he obtains more precise cost information and thanked the board for the opportunity to speak.