House Transportation Committee hears push to codify municipal authority to maintain legal trails

The Vermont House Transportation Committee heard testimony May 15 urging lawmakers to clarify that municipalities may maintain legal trails, public rights of way that are not highways, and to codify that authority to prevent loss of recreational access.

The issue matters because legal trails provide primary access to publicly owned lands and support local outdoor recreation economies; witnesses said uncertainty after a pending Tunbridge lawsuit could lead towns either to reclassify or discontinue trails. "A legal trail is a public right of way that's not a highway," said Josh Hanford, director of intergovernmental relations at the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, summarizing the status and history of mapped trails.

Witnesses described the background and scope of the mapping effort that followed Act 178 (2006), including grants to municipalities to map historic roads and trails and a statutory mapping deadline in 2015. The League said that early mapping added 248 miles of legal trails and 48 miles of class 4 roads, and that the statewide network now is roughly 550 miles across about 90 municipalities. A League survey of municipalities (45 responses) found that 70% of reported legal trails are open to bicycles, 60% to snowmobiles and 40% to all-terrain vehicles; municipalities and volunteers share maintenance tasks such as clearing trees, signage and occasional grading.

Cale Romanoff, staff attorney at the League's Municipal Assistance Center, addressed the key legal question raised by the Tunbridge petitioner: whether towns lack statutory authority to perform maintenance and could face inverse-condemnation (takings) claims if they do. Romanoff said the municipal authority to maintain is "necessarily implied and in or incident to multiple grants of authority already in state statute," citing the common-law concept of a public right of way and Title 19 V.S.A. and related provisions that authorize towns to lay out trails and to regulate trail use. "We think the risk of [a] takings claim against municipalities is quite low," Romanoff said, while acknowledging that larger maintenance projects could raise different issues and that some remedies might be injunctions rather than damages.

Committee members asked about practical effects if a court ruled for the petitioner. Romanoff said that even if the trail remains a public right of way for uses such as hunting, a ruling that removes municipal maintenance authority could leave trails impassable over time. He noted the statutory exemption from liability for town trail maintenance (Title 19 V.S.A. §310) as supporting the position that maintenance authority is discretionary rather than absent, and he described the Tunbridge case as in superior‑court summary‑judgment stage and likely to be appealed.

Witnesses recommended adding clarifying language to the bill and including a clear purpose statement that the legislature intends to confirm existing municipal authority rather than create new authority. No formal motion or committee action occurred during the testimony.

Participants identified the scope of the problem with examples: a Rochester legal trail that provides access to Riley Bostwick Wildlife Management Area and connects to state and federal lands, a historic carriage road in Randolph used for recreation, and mapping work performed in approximately 89 towns under earlier grant programs. The League emphasized municipalities' long practice of coordinating with volunteers and nonprofit trail groups to maintain multiuse access.

The committee did not take a vote; witnesses and lawmakers indicated the matter could be addressed by inserting clarifying language in pending legislation and by a purpose statement to explain the legislative intent should the courts later review the issue.