Northern Colorado city to change approach in response to homelessness

The city of Loveland is moving forward with two major changes to the way it is tackling homelessness in Northern Colorado. In a Loveland City Council meeting that lasted until nearly 2 a.m. Wednesday, the council finalized two votes to start making changes.

"We have been a failure at (addressing homelessness). We need to do something different," said council member Kalina Middleton of ward three.

The overall sentiment of everyone in attendance for the meeting was that Loveland needs to change the way it addresses topics involving the unhoused. No matter which side of the debate people fell on, everyone seemed to agree the current situation was not sustainable.

"As Loveland continues to grow, the unhoused population for better or worse tends to grow," city attorney Vincent Junglas said.

In a 6-3 vote, the city council elected to get rid of it current law that requires it to provide shelter to the homeless before issuing a citation, and also requires the city to store personal belongings for the homeless.

"I believe we are putting an undue burden on our city and an undue burden on our staff to try and enforce something we shouldn't have to enforce," Mayor Patrick McFall said.

"We've seen this for three years," said council member Andrea Samson of ward two. "It didn't work out."

In a second vote, the council also landed 6-3 on the purchase of a facility to become a homeless shelter in the northwest portion of the city, away from downtown. The decision did not come with ease, including for those who supported the measure.

"I don't think this solves a problem," said council member Zeke Cortez, of ward four.

"Having a homeless response that offers wraparound services and sheltering is three-times cheaper than not having a solution at all and relying on policing," said council member Laura Light-Kovacs of ward four.    

Nearly all on the council members vocalized their beliefs that the city should not be in the business of owning and operating a homeless shelter. That is why the verbiage of the action they passed only moved to purchase the property rather than operate it. It would also require the city to sell another city-owned building to afford the new one.

The new facility would cost nearly $3 million and an additional $110,000 annually for operations. Some council members expressed their support for the measure contingent on it being operated by a third party organization that the council would approve of.

"We own this building. How do we ensure this city does not get back into owning and operating a shelter?" McFall asked city attorneys.

"I think we take a strong policy position that we are not going to operate a facility," city manager Jim Thompson said. "So part of the condition, if we do acquire it, is we are not going to operate it. If we get (a third part operator) and they leave after a year, we either sell the building or use it for something different."

Some on city council encouraged people from the community to gather their questions and concerns for the next reading of the initiatives.