Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Trails Takings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill language on "legal trails" sparks takings and litigation concerns as Tunbridge case proceeds
Summary
Conference conferees reviewed Senate language clarifying municipal maintenance authority over 'legal trails' and flagged potential takings claims and the risk of delaying an active Tunbridge declaratory‑judgment case; conferees asked for more legal analysis.
A Senate‑added provision addressing so‑called "legal trails" drew extended discussion because it could change who may maintain certain public rights of way and may affect a pending Tunbridge lawsuit challenging maintenance authority.
Legislative counsel Damien Leonard briefed conferees on the statutory history: trails were pulled out of the town‑highway classification when Title 19 was recodified in 1986, leaving an ambiguity about whether towns retained maintenance authority. The Senate language would clarify maintenance rights for municipalities; conferees raised the possibility that clarifying language could be interpreted as an infringement on private property rights and trigger takings claims.
Why it matters: If statute language is changed while a declaratory‑judgment case is pending, the court could find the challenge moot and plaintiffs might refile takings lawsuits seeking compensation, potentially exposing the state or municipalities to monetary liability. Conferees also noted the statutory and factual complexity: these rights affect access to state forests, parks and local trail networks.
Discussion highlights
- Legal background: Conferees referenced Title 19 and 1 V.S.A. §§ 213–214 (legislative effect on pending cases) and noted the case already had prior appeals; the committee heard that the dispute has been raised to higher courts before.
- Risk assessment: Leonard said changing the law carries risk that the matter would be remanded or re‑litigated as a takings claim, which could require the state to pay damages if private property rights were found to have been taken.
- Policy tradeoffs: Supporters argued that clarifying municipal maintenance authority preserves public access and makes municipal responsibilities clear; opponents urged caution and called for more legal analysis before altering the statute while litigation is unresolved.
Next steps
Conferees requested further legal analysis, historical record review and stakeholder briefing before deciding whether to move the language forward.
