Riverbank council amends PLHA plan, directs $1.5 million notice-of-funding availability for supportive housing

The Riverbank City Council voted unanimously to amend the city’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) plan and to open a competitive funding process for $1.5 million in state-allocated interim funds for supportive housing.

The council’s two actions on the topic were: (1) adopting an amendment to the PLHA plan allocating a greater share of remaining PLHA dollars to operations and services at Sierra House, the city’s newly purchased transitional housing facility; and (2) directing staff to issue a notice of funding availability (NOFA) inviting affordable-housing developers to propose use of $1.5 million in program funds that had been set aside earlier by the council for transitional or permanent supportive housing.

City staff told the council the PLHA program originates from SB 2, a state housing law that created a permanent funding source for local affordable-housing activities. Staff said the city has been formally awarded the first three years of PLHA funding and has used earlier allocations to help underwrite eight tiny homes and start-up costs for supportive services. Staff reported total PLHA awards to date of roughly $521,000 and said the city expects additional allocations for later years (staff cited an expected additional $192,700 for 2022–2023 in their presentation).

Under the amendment approved by council, staff proposed and council accepted dedicating 60% of the remaining PLHA funds to Sierra House and 40% to affordable ownership or rental activity. Staff presented rough dollar estimates: approximately $160,000 toward affordable ownership/rental activities and approximately $239,000 toward Sierra House from the most recent tranche; council approved the plan as presented. Staff cautioned that some PLHA-eligible ownership or rental projects require state review before funds can be expended, whereas funds allocated for operations at Sierra House can be spent immediately.

Separately, council considered the fate of $1.5 million in state funds that had been set aside earlier through a separate legislative allocation (discussed in prior years as a $2 million award). Staff described three broad options: (1) buy land for an affordable housing project and solicit a developer, (2) issue a NOFA to fund construction of transitional or permanent supportive housing by outside developers, or (3) use the funds to underwrite Sierra House operations for multiple years. After discussion, council voted 5–0 to pursue option 2 and directed staff to issue the NOFA and evaluate proposals from experienced affordable-housing developers.

Council members emphasized the need to leverage outside partners and grant opportunities when possible and to avoid tying up city land at current market rates. Multiple council members said they want Sierra House to be stable and sustainable; several supported shifting some General Fund support to operations while searching for a long‑term implementation partner.

The NOFA route will require staff to draft application materials, advertise the opportunity countywide and beyond, and return to council with recommended proposals for award. If the council later chooses to allocate funds to operations instead, staff said those funds could be transferred into the transitional/permanent supportive housing account for use at Sierra House.

What this means now: the PLHA amendment provides a short-term infusion to Sierra House operations and earmarks the remaining PLHA funds for affordable housing activity; the NOFA opens a competitive process for the $1.5 million state set‑aside that council previously retained for supportive housing work. Council direction did not commit the city to a specific developer or construction timeline.

Votes and motions on the two items were recorded by roll call. The PLHA amendment and the NOFA direction each passed on 5–0 votes.

Ending: Council asked staff to return with draft NOFA documents and evaluation criteria and to include an implementation timeline and community partners likely to be engaged in supportive services. Staff said they would coordinate with Stanislaus County partners and report back to the council before committing funds to a selected project.