Commission discusses housing pipeline, RFP for developer and barriers to permanent supportive housing

The Plumas County Behavioral Health Commission debated next steps for developing housing targeted to residents with behavioral‑health needs, including issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for a housing developer after the prior developer withdrew.

Staff explained that the county previously used No Place Like Home funding for projects that are now exhausted, and that the county applied this year for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) but did not receive an allocation. Staff said the county may reapply in future years, but the PLHA allocation declines year to year (staff cited an example second‑year allocation of roughly $100,000 as the program value decreases).

Commission discussion focused on practical barriers: smaller rural counties face reduced per‑project funding, limited interest from developers and property managers, eviction timelines, and sheriff‑office reservations about concentrating behavioral‑health clients in a single development. Several commissioners urged exploring alternative models and collective approaches, such as a county‑level subcommittee or using the Continuum of Care and regional partnerships to pursue pilot funding.

Staff asked for the commission's support to post a new RFP. Commissioners present did not record a formal motion or roll‑call vote on the RFP during the meeting; one commissioner said they were “willing to try,” and others suggested broader coordination with the board of supervisors and rural county coalitions to find funding and partners.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said Plumas County lacks sufficient permanent supportive housing for residents with chronic behavioral‑health needs. Staff described the existing landscape as heavily weighted toward transitional units and contract‑managed properties; permanent supportive housing — units paired with long‑term supports — is the missing element.

Clarifying details offered in the discussion included: the CHDC (Community Housing Development entity) formerly involved has stepped back from these projects; some grants used previously are exhausted; county staff currently contracts with third parties for property management and wrap services; and recruiting developers for rural projects has been difficult. Staff said local organizations have operated transitional cottages and that county staff are exploring pilot and legislative avenues with rural‑county coalitions.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to continue exploring options, including an RFP and a county or regional strategy to pursue pilot funding and legislative support. The item closed as a discussion with no recorded formal decision at that meeting.