Senate Transportation reviews S.4 to clarify municipal authority, liability and vehicle rules for legal trails

The Senate Transportation Committee resumed testimony on S.4 on Oct. 12, hearing legal counsel explain the bill would amend state statutes to clarify that "trail" means a public right of way that is not a highway and to give municipalities express authority to maintain and regulate such trails.

Committee members were told the bill’s central changes include (1) redefining "trail" in Title 19, Chapter 3, (2) giving select boards authority to maintain trails while removing a statutory duty of care and (3) adding a municipal police-power grant in 24 V.S.A. §2291 to regulate uses of legal trails, including types of vehicles. "This is Senate Transportation, and we're resuming our testimony on S.4," the committee chair said as the hearing opened.

Why it matters: witnesses and senators flagged three issues with legal and policy consequences. First, counsel advised that trails are public rights of way that may exist as either municipal fee ownership or as easements across private land; changing their classification or the permitted municipal maintenance could affect private property interests. Second, counsel raised takings and compensation risks if municipal actions materially alter the physical bounds or authorized uses of an easement. Third, the bill proposes removing a municipal duty of care for maintained trails and explicitly grants towns authority to regulate vehicle types and other uses — a change that could shift liability and local enforcement burdens.

During testimony, legislative counsel Tucker Anderson and a second counsel reviewed statutory history dating to a 1921 trail statute, a 2006 mapping requirement and 1986 amendments. Counsel said the 2006 mapping effort created a five-year process by which municipalities mapped formerly unlisted Class 4 roads and trails; the general assembly had expressly excluded trails from presumptive extinguishment under that process. Counsel also pointed to existing language in current trail law (19 V.S.A. §310(c) as cited in testimony) that already protects towns from liability for construction, maintenance, repair or safety of trails, and noted S.4 would further clarify that towns "shall not be required to maintain trails and shall not owe a duty of care" to trail users.

Senators pressed multiple specifics. One asked whether "exclusively or cooperatively" in the bill meant towns could maintain a trail without landowner agreement; counsel answered the phrase was intended to allow exclusive municipal action or cooperative arrangements (including contracts or intermunicipal agreements). Committee members also sought a statutory line distinguishing "minor" from "significant" maintenance for takings analysis; counsel said that statutory language exists in Vermont law but offered to return with a deeper briefing on how courts have treated the distinction.

Counsel said municipalities would receive an express delegation under 24 V.S.A. §2291 to regulate legal-trail uses "including the regulation of the types of vehicles that may be used on legal trails," and cautioned that delegations of power must be express because courts construe ambiguous grants to municipalities narrowly. Senators named uses of concern: ATVs, snowmobiles, e-bikes and high-speed electric bikes, and asked whether towns could limit time of day, seasonality or quantity of vehicles. Counsel confirmed municipalities could pursue those forms of regulation if the delegation is clear, but urged further legal review of how that authority would interact with other state law and preexisting delegations.

On liability and landowner exposure, counsel said questions of landowner responsibility for injuries on or adjacent to trails depend on numerous fact-specific issues and existing case law; they offered to research comparative liability for a town that installs a water bar or other maintenance feature and a private landowner whose property abuts a trail.

Committee members and witnesses repeatedly noted ongoing litigation related to trail classification and takings; counsel recommended the committee review briefs filed in superior court to understand arguments already advanced. No formal vote on S.4 was recorded during the hearing; counsel offered to return with more detailed legal memos and precedent on takings, easement scope, and the interaction of the bill with existing statutory provisions.

The committee then proceeded to walk through S.4 section-by-section and requested additional written materials and follow-up testimony before further action.