State committee weighs clarifying towns' authority to maintain mapped legal trails amid pending court case

The Vermont Legislature's transportation committee on May 13 debated whether to clarify municipal authority to maintain "legal trails," public rights of way that many towns and trail groups treat as town-managed connectors. Damien Leonard of the Office of Legislative Council briefed committee members on legal risks while local trail advocates described how towns and volunteer groups rely on the routes for recreation, access and emergency connections.

The issue matters because legal trails—most of them former town highways mapped under state highway law—total roughly 500 miles across the state and are used for commuting, recreation and emergency access, witnesses said.

Leonard, who advised the committee on legal risks, said the core legal question is whether a 1986 recodification of Title 19 removed towns' implicit maintenance authority for trails previously treated as town highways. "If the town is correct, then they've had the right to maintain all along. They don't need to pay for it," Leonard said. He warned that if a court rules the legislature did relinquish maintenance authority in 1986, municipalities that assert maintenance authority could face inverse-condemnation claims demanding compensation for the asserted right.

Leonard described three outcomes the committee should weigh: clarifying the statute prospectively to confirm town authority; adopting language with a delayed effective date (which could allow the pending trial-court case to be decided before the change takes effect); or doing nothing and letting the litigation proceed. "The thought behind the delay is that that may give time for at least the trial court to issue a decision," Leonard said, adding a one-year delay might not be long enough for a full appeal process.

Trail and town witnesses told the committee that many municipalities and stewardship groups have long assumed towns can control and, when chosen, maintain mapped legal trails. "Close to three-quarters of trails that are open to the public cross private land," said Nick Bennett, executive director of the Vermont Mountain Bike Association and chair of the Trails and Greenways Council. He told the committee that legal trails are among the smaller set of trails that the public can count on in perpetuity and that towns often work cooperatively with volunteer stewardship groups.

Jeff Nugent, senior panel planner for the Windsor-Addison Regional Commission and a board member of the Trails and Greenways Council, gave town examples to show how practice varies. "Dover has about 11 miles of legal trails," Nugent said; counts on one Dover route show "50 to a hundred users per day" during warm months. By contrast, Jamaica has about 18 miles of legal trails and performs no formal town maintenance; local users clear obstacles ad hoc. Nugent said some towns adopt formal policies stating they will not maintain class 4 roads or legal trails but still reserve authority to control uses or perform minimal repairs when necessary.

Committee members asked about other consequences Leonard flagged: whether changing the law prospectively could render the current lawsuit moot (requiring a new claim), or create exposure to compensation claims if the legislature later grants the maintenance right without addressing compensation. Leonard recommended the committee consider drafting language that frames any statutory change as clarifying legislative intent, noting courts give varying weight to such intent statements.

Witnesses urged the committee to preserve public access and to treat clarifying language as confirmation of longstanding practice rather than a new entitlement. Bennett said the goal for many towns and stewardship groups is to reduce confusion so municipalities and volunteers can continue partnerships to maintain important connections between communities.

The committee received the testimony and planned further hearings and witness testimony later in the week; members were directed to the bill drafts and side-by-side edits posted on the committee web page for the most recent language. No vote or formal legislative action occurred during the May 13 meeting.

The committee scheduled additional testimony and said staff and counsel would remain available as members consider options ranging from prospective clarification to delayed enforcement language.