Loveland’s latest plan to establish a permanent homeless shelter is not moving forward.

On Monday, the city announced it is abandoning the proposed purchase of a building on West 71st Street after the nonprofit selected as a potential operator withdrew its application.

The city also said it will end overnight shelter services at the Loveland Resource Center at 137 S. Lincoln Ave. on March 15, followed by the permanent closure of the facility on April 30 — officially ending the city’s role in directly providing shelter and resource services to people experiencing homelessness.

“Loveland is the only city in Colorado that directly owns the property and manages both daily and overnight shelter operations,” a city news release states in part. “From the beginning, we took on the role of managing the Loveland Resource Center as a temporary measure, and we are now at a point where the city can no longer lead this effort or continue it alone. This important work is something cities are not equipped or prepared to manage.”

The city has been pursuing the West 71st Street property since October, after closing the 50-bed overnight tent shelter on Railroad Avenue at the end of September. City Council voted Jan. 6 to authorize the purchase, contingent on securing a qualified third-party operator to run the facility. A second council vote on the purchase, previously scheduled for Feb. 3, has been canceled.

The city received two responses to its request for proposals for a nonprofit operator — one from Bridge House, which operates homeless services in the Denver metro area, and one from Krucial Rapid Response. After reviewing the applications, city officials determined only Bridge House’s proposal was responsive.

However, Bridge House withdrew its application Friday, citing what the city described as “capacity constraints to meet project goals within the required timeline.” In a written response to questions, city officials said the nonprofit withdrew to focus on maintaining the stability of its existing operations, and not due to any changes to expectations outlined in the request for proposals released in November.

City officials also said they do not plan to modify or reissue the RFP and are no longer in a position to lead efforts to establish a permanent shelter. The city said it remains open to partnering with outside organizations if a viable proposal emerges.

“The city encourages continued community conversations about long-term solutions, but unfortunately, efforts to date have been unsuccessful and the city needs to make operational decisions that are in the best interest of the city and our financial future,” the release states.

The announcement drew sharply different reactions from those on both sides of the issue, highlighting an ongoing divide over the city’s responsibility to people experiencing homelessness.

Mayor Pat McFall echoed the city’s position that Loveland cannot continue addressing homelessness on its own and reiterated his push for a regional solution.

“The unfortunate aspect of this is that cities are not designed to do this type of work,” McFall said. “The ability to provide a full-time sheltering option just is not there.”

He also said he wants to avoid using the city’s general fund on homelessness services, unless residents vote for a tax increase to provide a dedicated funding mechanism.

“If the folks in the city really do want a shelter, the best bet is a ballot initiative that says we want this — and we’re willing to fund it,” McFall said.

City Councilor Sarah Rothberg, who represents Ward 2, said she was saddened by the decision to walk away from the West 71st Street proposal and what it means for Loveland residents who rely on those services or may need them in the future.

“We have people in Loveland who have lost housing, and I really want to live in a community where we take care of our neighbors and help them out of situations like that,” she said. “So I’m pretty devastated, but I don’t think this is the end of the discussion.”

Other shelter supporters questioned whether a regional solution is realistic in the near term and warned that the city’s decision leaves people experiencing homelessness with few immediate alternatives.

“What this does is it takes the city completely off the hook,” said Chuck Hubbard, a retired pastor and longtime advocate for unhoused residents. “The city can wash its hands and say we have no obligation to help the poorest among us.”

Hubbard went on to call McFall’s proposal for a broader solution a “pipe dream” and added that relying on a regional approach risks delaying action while existing services disappear.

“I think Loveland has to take responsibility to some degree, for its own population, and, like other cities, enable the development of a facility that moves people toward being housed,” he said.

But both Rothberg and Hubbard also sounded an optimistic note, saying the search for Loveland-based solutions will continue, whether through nonprofits or an alternative approach for the city.

“We can’t do nothing, and that’s what we’re going toward,” Rothberg said. “We’re at the point, unless we change something, we’re looking at just punishment as a solution — and you can’t punish people out of a bad situation.”