It seems that articles about Dillon almost write themselves these days. I’ve had a front row seat to some Dillon Town Council meetings that resembled a bad Saturday Night Live parody skit. In just the first three months of 2025, we have seen council members discuss potentially building a new restaurant at the marina, along with a new grocery store, restaurant, parking garage, parking lot, workforce housing, condominiums, new boat ramp, office space and other miscellaneous retail space in the town. And for those who have witnessed the childlike antics of both council members and the public at these meetings, including the R-rated language during some of the back-and-forth verbal volleys, it was hard to have faith in this version of local government.

We have witnessed a “successful” recall election for three of the council members who were a part of the council at the beginning of the year. After this election, these three members managed to stay on the council and vote on quite contentious issues at a town council meeting held after they lost the recall election but before the new three members were sworn in. Apparently, lame duck votes still count.

Which brings us to the present. At the most recent meeting, the town council of Dillon swore in its newest three members to get to the full board of seven members and away we went. And this is where the confusion begins. The town council voted on a measure to deliver a parcel of property to DURA, which is the Dillon Urban Renewal Authority, at no cost to DURA. The council voted 7-0 to approve this. OK, no problem, done deal. At the close of the meeting, the same seven town council members began a second meeting as the governing board of DURA. During this meeting they needed to vote on accepting the parcel of property from the town of Dillon. This is the precise parcel that the Dillon town council unanimously voted to give to DURA. And DURA said “no,” by a vote of 5-2. I thought about this for a while and couldn’t understand why DURA voted against this kind offer from Dillon. After all, how many of us would say “no” to someone offering a free parcel of property, unless of course there is something wrong with the property. Maybe Dillon is trying to rid itself of a contaminated property and pass off untold liabilities to DURA? Perhaps this small parcel is otherwise haunted by something of its past?

But no such luck exists for some explanation that would explain why DURA said “no.” So I did what any confused lawyer would do in similar circumstances: I sent all seven council members an e-mail via their official Dillon e-mail addresses and simply asked: what am I missing? All seven of the council voted to give the parcel to DURA, and then five of these same seven council members voted as DURA not to accept the offer. While I did not expect a reply from the two members who voted “yes” both times, I did expect a reply from all five of the members who voted different ways depending upon which hat they were wearing. And you would think that in the first public meeting following the recall election (an election upon which transparency and listening/responding to the public were primary themes), a simple answer to explain their differing votes would be easy to enunciate. I mean, let’s face it, if I were on the council and I was planning to vote in two different ways on the same issue in a public forum I would be ready with an explanation.

To date only two of the five council members have acknowledged my obvious question. One was a non-recalled member of the council, and the other was one of the newly appointed members. This new council member indicated to me that voting “yes” as a town council member “preserved options” and was not comfortable with voting “yes” as a DURA member because there was not enough information available to decide what would be in the best interest of the community. Fair enough. After listening to portions of the recording a second time, I still am confused as to exactly what the town is trying to do. Instead of tabling the issue for a few weeks so that this council member (and others) could get the requisite information to make an informed decision, the council voted down a resolution to accept the property.

And back to the chief complaint about the town council members recalled and their alleged lack of transparency and community involvement. I’m still waiting for replies from the other three members of both councils who did not vote in a consistent way. I may be waiting a long time.

Scott M. Estill’s column “Challenges, Choices, Changes” publishes biweekly on Thursdays in the Summit Daily News. Estill is an attorney, author, and public speaker who lives in Dillon when not traveling or attending to legal matters in Denver. Contact him at scott@scottestill.com.