While Nov. 5 is creeping up fast, the Oct. 1 referendum election in Dillon is already here. And if you live in Dillon, this special election will impact you.

The Dillon election is a bit different from a regular election in that it is entirely done via mail. There are no polling places open for you to cast your ballot in the traditional manner. If you are unsure of your voter registration status or have not received an expected ballot, you can update your address information online (GoVoteColorado.gov) or contact the Summit County Clerk’s Office.

Dillon voters will be asked to vote “yes” or “no” on a Charter Amendment to have the rules for signature requirements in Dillon conform to the Colorado constitution. A “yes” vote here seems more than reasonable given that the inconsistencies between the State of Colorado and town of Dillon could lead to future litigation.

The more challenging issue for voters concerns the referendum. The first challenge is trying to understand what the referendum really states. It is no doubt confusing and difficult to decipher. But then again, nothing about how we got here really makes sense. A planned unit development was proposed for the 626 Lake Dillon Drive project and was eventually approved by the town council (twice). So, what is the problem? It can be best summarized as follows: the town council forgot to require workforce housing, did not require a complete traffic impact study before approval and did not begin to listen to its constituents (the residents of Dillon and not the developer) regarding the overall height of the building. The citizens were not happy with the council and its planned unit development decisions and gathered the necessary signatures to put this to a vote. So here we are.

In looking at the specific referendum language, the voter is being asked if they approve the planned unit development in a somewhat roundabout way. Reading this referendum as a geeky lawyer, I can boil it down to the following: if you want the planned unit development to be constructed as the town council previously approved, you should vote “yes.” If you want the planned unit development to be rejected (not approved), you should vote “no.” I plan on voting “no” on this issue. For me, the lack of workforce housing, along with the height waiver for this specific location and lack of an adequate traffic survey, is something that I would not have voted to approve had I been on the town council and cannot support now that I am being asked to vote on the issue.

Much has been made about the developer’s binary option choice discussion in which he stated that if Dillon voters failed to approve the planned unit development, they would get stuck with an ugly version of a Plan B. The game (if I don’t get what I want, I will give you something you don’t want) the developer is playing is downright foolish and insulting. Giving Dillon residents this type of an ultimatum is in poor taste and perhaps an indication of what type of developer we are dealing with.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago the developer requested that the petition for the referendum be withdrawn. Given that we are having a referendum election on this issue, the developer obviously did not get his way to stop the vote. Yet, I am unaware of there being any discussion of withdrawing the planned unit development and making the few corrections that the majority of those in opposition would like to see made. Make the workforce housing a written component of the planned unit development. Eliminate the “observation tower” and height variances. We are already over 9,000 feet in Dillon; plenty high without the need for a tower.

The developer insists he will not return to the negotiating table with the town if he loses this vote. Why not? He continues to insist that there is no Plan C. Why not? In my 36 years of practicing law, I learned long ago that everything is ultimately negotiable. The town council failed to negotiate on behalf of the town’s residents before approving the planned unit development. I am voting “no” to give the council a second chance at getting this right.

As we wait for the first snowfall, Dillon voters will have a choice to make. Do they want the planned unit development as proposed, or do they want something else? You only get one chance to vote on this issue. Be informed, as Dillon will live with this vote for 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.