Committee staff recommends a "toehold" on trails maintenance; full S.4 debate deferred

At a meeting of the Senate Transportation Committee, committee counsel recommended adding limited language on trail maintenance to the committee's T bill while postponing consideration of the broader S.4 (legal trails) provisions until after further testimony and legal research.

Damian Leonard, counsel with the Onslow Legislative Council, told the committee that maintenance is the clearer legal question and urged the committee to “put a toehold into the T bill, around the issue of maintenance,” while the more complex questions about permitted uses on trails be studied later.

Leonard explained the legal distinction the committee is weighing: “All easements are a form of right of way, but not all rights of way are an easement,” and noted that whether a municipality owns the land in fee simple or holds only an easement affects its ability to change uses without creating a new burden on underlying landowners.

The committee discussed that if a town owns the land outright it can more easily change uses; where the town holds only a limited easement, converting uses could raise questions about increased burdens and compensation. Leonard said staff and a colleague, Tucker, are still reviewing Vermont case law and other pitfalls and recommended reserving the more complicated use questions for later testimony.

One senator said she might introduce a floor amendment to include the full S.4 on the T-bill floor unless the committee’s promise to take up the remaining S.4 sections is honored; she said she would refrain if she were satisfied the committee would fully debate the sections after the T bill moves forward.

The committee chair and counsel framed the recommended path as pragmatic: include maintenance language now to protect trails in the short term and continue deliberation and testimony on the fuller S.4 package so the committee can do due diligence before adopting broader changes.

Background: committee members and staff repeatedly referenced an ongoing court case that has raised the underlying legal questions; staff said the outcome and applicable Vermont case law remain relevant to whether the committee should expand statutory uses or limit changes to maintenance.

The committee did not take a formal vote at the meeting on S.4. The record shows staff recommended drafting text for immediate inclusion in the T bill and scheduling further testimony on the broader S.4 provisions.

Ending: Staff said they will draft maintenance language for the T bill and continue research on the remaining S.4 sections, with the aim of revisiting the question after the T bill moves to the floor.