Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Trails Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Municipal leaders urge clarification of legal‑trail maintenance rights amid Tunbridge court case
Summary
Municipal representatives told the Senate Transportation committee that statutory clarification is needed to ensure towns may continue to maintain legal trails that cross private property, following an encumbrance lawsuit in Tunbridge that has raised questions about maintenance authority.
Officials from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and municipal representatives appeared before the Senate Transportation committee to support S.4 (legal trails language) and to ask for statutory clarification so municipalities can continue to maintain and manage designated legal trails that cross private parcels.
John Panker and Samantha Sheehan of the League summarized results of a voluntary survey of municipalities that maintain legal trails: of 45 respondents, 44 reported actively maintaining legal trails; many municipalities co‑maintain trails with volunteers and nonprofits. The League’s survey found roughly 547 miles in the sampled set of legal trails and a mix of permitted uses (walking, hiking, snowmobiling, ATV use in some places), with maintenance tasks including brush clearing, signage, grading and culvert repair.
League representatives said the Tunbridge encumbrance litigation has created concern among towns that invested in trail networks and asked lawmakers to adopt straightforward language clarifying that municipalities that have legal trails also have the authority to maintain those trails. "We strongly support any action to protect municipal public spaces that allow people to use them," a League representative told the committee, urging prompt action to avoid costly litigation and uncertainty.
Municipal representatives said the issue is not only recreation: many legal trails connect downtowns to state forests, trail networks and businesses, and towns have invested time and money in trail improvements. Speakers warned that uncertainty about maintenance rights could chill future investments and asked for a simple statutory clarification rather than protracted court fights.
Committee members said they would consider the request and noted the cross‑cutting liability and funding questions for municipalities raised elsewhere in the hearing. No formal action or vote was taken on the bill during this session.
