Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Encampment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to remove shelter requirement from Loveland's encampment rules after extensive public comment
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment and extended council debate, Loveland's City Council voted down on first reading a proposed amendment (Ordinance 67-84) that would have removed the requirement to confirm availability of alternate shelter before citing or abating unauthorized encampments; vote was 3-5 against the change.
Loveland's City Council rejected, on first reading, an amendment that would have removed the city's existing requirement to confirm shelter availability prior to issuing notices, citations or conducting abatement actions against unauthorized encampments.
City Attorney Vince Jungles presented the draft amendment (Ordinance 67-84) as a response to recent federal precedent, explaining that U.S. Supreme Court guidance (Grants Pass) altered the prior legal framework that had required municipalities to offer alternate shelter before criminal or civil penalties could be pursued. Jungles said the proposed language would align Loveland's code with current U.S. Supreme Court precedent and remove an obligation in the current municipal code to confirm shelter space prior to issuing a summons or initiating abatement; the draft would also make storage of removed belongings discretionary rather than mandatory.
The public-comment period that followed was the largest of the evening. Dozens of Loveland residents, nonprofit and faith leaders, service providers and advocates urged the council to reject the amendment and instead to invest in shelters, storage, wraparound services and regional coordination. Speakers such as Ann Marie Kajansky and Elizabeth Fockenberg asked council not to criminalize poverty or mental illness; faith-leader Michael Stein and others described prior community partnerships and appealed to the council to preserve shelter options. Several speakers warned of increased jail costs, public-health harms, and the risk that people would be pushed into less-visible, less-safe locations.
Councilors debated the practical effects. Supporters of the change (including Councillor Foley) said the amendment gives officers discretion and aligns the city with recent Supreme Court precedent, while opponents warned that, without nearby shelter options, criminalization would effectively target people who have nowhere to go. The clerk and manager explained the imminent operational issue: the temporary conditional-use authorization for the South Railroad shelter and associated modular services expires on Sept. 30; if shelters are unavailable, an ordinance that requires an available shelter for abatement may be unworkable in practice.
On roll call the motion to approve Ordinance 67-84 on first reading failed 3 yes to 5 no. Councilors opposing the amendment said they would prefer to pursue solutions such as regional partnerships, designated camping areas, or a ballot funding measure that would secure long-term sheltering resources.
Next steps: Because the ordinance failed on first reading, the current shelter/abatement code remains unchanged. Councilors and staff discussed returning to the topic with more analysis, impact studies and potential ballot measures to fund housing services.
