Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Permanent supportive housing project stalls as RCHDC signals it may step back
Summary
Plumas County staff told the Behavioral Health Commission it had received an email from RCHDC indicating the nonprofit's proposed development “may not be a viable option” for meeting a state housing-community development deadline; county staff are exploring next steps including issuing a request for proposals or seeking external consultation.
Plumas County behavioral health staff told commissioners June 11 that a planned partnership with RCHDC for permanent supportive housing may not proceed, and that the county is seeking clarification and planning alternatives.
Sharon (staff member) read portions of an email from RCHDC — the county’s housing partner on a proposed project — saying the nonprofit “remains committed to supporting the county ... While our proposed development may not be a viable option, we are happy to discuss other ways to assist, such as providing consultation support.” Sharon said the email arrived recently and that staff asked RCHDC for clarification.
Why it matters: The housing project carried a timeline tied to Housing and Community Development program deadlines and had been planned to use MHSA funds for acquisition and support. County staff said some competitive grant deadlines required projects to be identified and under development on an aggressive schedule; if the county cannot meet the deadlines, it may need to reissue solicitations or return funds.
County staff described options and next steps: (1) ask RCHDC to clarify whether it is formally withdrawing as developer; (2) if so, issue a request for proposals to identify another developer; (3) seek external consultation from an experienced county housing director who has led permanent supportive housing projects, to advise the county on meeting deadlines and structuring a viable project.
Discussion and constraints: Commissioners noted the tight timelines and the risk that, if the county cannot start the project in time, some grants or program funds may need to be repaid. Staff emphasized they need to research funding rules and will report back; no final decision was made at the meeting.
Ending: Staff committed to follow up with RCHDC, research grant deadlines and options, and pursue consultant assistance if needed before bringing a recommended path to the commission.
