Outside groups aren't allowed to rent the Dillon Amphitheater, but one Christian group receives special privilege with the help of insiders on the town board

Jun 17, 2024

The town of Dillon, Colorado has a large amphitheater that serves as a hub for graduations, free concerts, and movie nights. As the venue became more popular, however, outside groups began requesting to use the space, which meant local officials needed to figure out a plan to deal with all that interest.

But for decades now— 42 years, in fact—one group has been allowed to access the space without a problem: The Dillon Community Church.

(Follow above article link to view original article with photos/PDFs.)

The church has its own building a couple of blocks away, but if I had access to a space like this, I’d take advantage of it whenever I could, too. The church is not the problem here. As far as I can tell, they pay to rent the space and the city has been fine with it.

The problem is that no other outside group is able to use or rent the facility.

Maybe it made sense for the town to offer the church access to the space a while back, but Dillon is now a growing town. More businesses, political groups, and other religious organizations are asking to use the amphitheater. So why is one church (and only that one church) allowed to use the space when that privilege isn’t extended to any other group?

Back in April, according to the Summit Daily, local officials knew this was becoming a problem and they wanted to implement a new policy that would address the rising interest.

They also wanted to avoid any problems that might develop if people thought the town was sponsoring those outside events.

“There are a lot of other groups out there that I hear from that want to be in (the amphitheater),” [Dillon events and recreations director Jessie] Klehfoth said. “I don’t know as a town that we’re comfortable being a sponsor or partner of that event because that might start to cross the lines of political or religious affiliations, even private corporations.” 

There were two straightforward solutions:

Craft a policy allowing outside groups to rent the space in a fair way, and make sure those independent events are advertised as such.

Tell everyone the amphitheater isn’t open to outside groups at all.

So the council began discussing their options. Town Attorney Kathleen Kelly advised them about what issues needed to be considered in an “amphitheater use policy” and she used their feedback to write up a draft proposal that was perfectly sensible.

It said that for town-sponsored free events (like movie nights), Dillon would bear all the costs and retain all the profits from food/merch sales. For town-sponsored ticketed events (like a concert), Dillon would have to pay a “use fee” but they could make it back with a portion of ticket sales and merchandise.

All that was fine. But what about outside groups that wanted to use the amphitheater?

Kelly and amphitheater staffers said the town used the venue so much—”5 or 6 days a week”—that they could simply say no to all outside rentals. That avoided the legal entanglements and presented a simple solution to the rising demand. Given the choice between creating a public forum or keeping the amphitheater closed off to outside groups, they felt the latter option was best.

What would happen to the church? Under the proposed policy, it couldn’t use the amphitheater anymore. Kelly explained that her draft helped the town avoid any possible Establishment Clause violations:

“The establishment clause essentially says that the government cannot support, promote or become overly intertwined with religious activities,” Kelly said. “The use of the amphitheater — because it is owned by the town of Dillon — is subject to the establishment clause, and that is something I urge you to take into consideration.”

That became a sticking point for several people in the community.

Town council member Dana Christiansen argued that the church should be allowed to keep using the space because they run a local food bank, as if they had proven their worth to the community. (Other groups could obviously argue that they, too, provide a tangible benefit.) Christiansen added that Dillon-based organizations should get “preferential treatment.”

The church’s senior pastor, Jim Howard, said they should be allowed to keep using the amphitheater because… tradition!

… Dillon Community Church Senior Pastor Jim Howard noted that the church has been a staple of the town since it was founded.

“We are very sad,” Howard said. “You know, our church was started in 1912, and we’re very sad. We’re not attorneys. We just rent it.”

Keep in mind that this church can always hold services at their own building. Just because they were able to take advantage of the city resources in the past doesn’t mean they should be allowed to keep doing it in the future.

Another council member, Renee Imamura, said that the church ought to be “grandfathered in” even if the new policy was adopted:

“Legally, I do want to protect the town, absolutely,” Imamura said. “But I’d be in favor of opening it up to everyone. Although, (Dillon Community Church) should be grandfathered in. They’ve been using our facility for so many years — then to pull the rug out from under them, I just do not agree with that.” 

The rug was not pulled out from under them. They have a building. They have plenty of time to adjust their schedule. This is not an anti-Christian policy in any way.

Only one council member, Kyle Hendricks, had the good sense to remind everyone that a Christian church couldn’t receive any kind of special treatment:

… “We shouldn’t be opening ourselves up like this.” He added, “We didn’t built the amphitheater for God. We built the amphitheater for Summit County.”

The carefully crafted draft policy was soon unanimously voted down. That in itself wasn’t a problem. Like I said, the town could choose between an open and closed forum! If they didn’t like the proposed closed forum, they could always ask the attorney to write up a policy for an open one that follows the law.

But then, the council members voted 5-1 to reinstate the “informal” policy that allowed the church to keep using the space on Sundays… at least until they could get a new policy drafted.

That’s where they made a fatal mistake.

Council member Oliver Luck didn’t think this was a problem:

Luck, who noted that he is a lawyer, said, “There is a very small chance that if we extend the current situation by two weeks or four weeks or six weeks that there will be any legal issues that will expose the town.”

That’s an audacious statement. The public is now aware that the town is breaking the law by giving special treatment to the church, but this guy (he’s a lawyer, dammit!) thinks it’ll be fine for them to keep breaking the law for another six weeks. Hell, if they never adopt a new policy, then the church can just keep using the amphitheater indefinitely, right?!

You have to feel bad for the town attorney who did all this work to write up a sensible proposal, only to have the majority of the council ignore everything she was trying to tell them:

Kelly said that her role as town attorney is to give the Town Council legal advice, but from there it is up to the Town Council to decide what to do with that advice.

“You’ve been fully briefed on the legal advice, and it is now your decision what you do with it from a policy standpoint,” Kelly said. “I’m not here to argue with anyone about use of the amphitheater.”

I admire her ability to not scream, “WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU?!“

To make matters worse, Christiansen, the council member who was most vocal in saying the church ought to be able to access the amphitheater no matter what, lashed out at Kelly for not creating the policy he wanted, adding that she wasn’t as “proactive and solutions-oriented” as her predecessor.

Then he demanded she be replaced.

… He called for the Town Council to discuss its legal representation at a future meeting.

“If it’s me, I’m paying my attorney to find solutions, not to throw obstacles in the way of what we’re trying to accomplish,” Christiansen said. “So I would like to put on (a future) agenda that we review our legal representation.

What an utter buffoon. The town’s lawyer heard their requests and came up with a sound policy that avoided legal problems… only to have the elected officials dismiss it—and insult her intelligence and suggest she be fired—because she didn’t make room for Christian privilege.

Kelly must have known these people were hopeless. On Wednesday, she resigned as town attorney after six years on the job. She didn’t give any comment to Ryan Spencer, the local reporter who’s been covering this story for months.

But the Freedom From Religion Foundation weighed in just before her resignation was made public:

FFRF didn’t say they planned to sue the town, but if the current “informal” policy says no outside groups can use the amphitheater except the church, then a lawsuit is certainly possible, especially if someone in the community wants to access the space but isn’t able to.

Hendricks, the lone member of the council to vote against reinstating the old “informal” policy, was very concerned about where this is heading:

Hendricks said he is worried that the decision by the Town Council exposes the town to a potential lawsuit.

“It’s a horrible position to put ourselves in purposely,” Hendricks said. “I’m not sure how the five council (members) were able to come up with this decision. It does not seem well thought out and in the best interest of Dillon.”

Hendricks added, “It bothers me that there are members of the Dillon Community Church on the Town Council and nobody seems to care.”

He didn’t specify which members of the council were members of the church, but that would certainly explain why so many of them are willing to open the town up to a lawsuit.

That’s where this issue remains for the time being. The church, with the help of insiders on the town council, can keep using a public space that’s closed off to everyone else. The lawyer who says that’s a horrible idea is walking away before the inevitable lawsuit comes. And the one council member who understands what the lawyer was saying is outnumbered by people who care more about a Christian church than doing the job they were elected to do.

On Wednesday, the Town Council will hold a special meeting to discuss this whole situation. If they’re wise, they’ll listen to the advice their attorney gave them before she walked away.