Senate Transportation Committee hears S.4 to clarify municipal authority to maintain trails

The Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 12 heard testimony on S.4, a bill intended to make explicit that municipalities may maintain public "trails," may delegate maintenance to local groups, and that towns would not be required to maintain trails or owe a statutory duty of care to trail users, sponsors and legislative counsel said.

Supporters told the committee the change would resolve legal ambiguity exposed by recent litigation, help preserve trail access used by residents and visitors, and protect recreation-dependent local businesses and events. Senator Alison Clarkson, the bill—s lead sponsor, said the measure grew from conversations with town officials and volunteers who currently maintain local trails.

"We currently maintain our town trails to the point that they are passable for pedestrians and horses," said Senator Alison Clarkson, the bill—s lead sponsor and former chair of the Woodstock Parks Commission. She said local groups repaired a washed-out section used by the Vermont 100 event and warned that "if we lose this ability to [do] this minimal amount of maintenance, it will make these trails unusable by many." Clarkson said the change would let towns delegate maintenance and help rural recreation businesses that draw visitors.

Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, outlined the statutory changes S.4 would make. "S.4 makes a few simple to explain amendments to title 19 within chapter 3, which governs town highways," Anderson said. He described three main components: a definitions change to make clear a municipality can maintain a public right of way that is not a highway (a trail); an amendment noting that trails "shall not be considered highways" but that a municipality "shall have the authority to maintain trails, but shall not be responsible for any maintenance"; and a change to the duties of the select board clarifying that a town "has the authority to maintain trails, but shall not be required to maintain trails and shall not owe a duty of care to persons using a trail that is maintained by the town." Anderson also said S.4 would add a power in 24 V.S.A. 2291 to allow municipalities to regulate legal trails by ordinance, including vehicle types.

On the question of whether ongoing litigation in Tunbridge would prevent passage, Anderson said no: "The limits on the authority of the general assembly must be contained in the constitution...the result of what has been remanded to the superior courts would not bind this body in changing the underlying statute at issue in that case." He told the committee members they could choose to wait for the court outcome, but that waiting was not legally required to change the statute.

Representatives of trail groups told the committee they support the bill. Tommy O'Connor, executive director of the Vermont ATV Sportsman's Association (VASA) and vice chair of the Vermont Trails and Greenways Council (VTGC), said Vermont has an extensive network of trails and that many are hosted on private land. "Last estimation was a little over 8,000 miles here in the state of Vermont are represented through Vermont Trails and Greenways groups, and the bigger part that we really enjoy is the 70% being hosted by private landowners," O'Connor said. He said some trail organizations estimate millions of dollars in deferred maintenance; VASA estimated about $2,000,000 to bring its network back to standard and said many groups rely on membership fees and grants such as the federal Recreational Trails Program (RTP).

Seth Westbrook, founder of the Woodstock Area Mountain Bike Association, described local dependence on trail networks for everyday use and tourism. "Legal trails are a gift from the past," Westbrook said, adding that the networks offer access for hikers, equestrians, cyclists and other users and support local economies in places such as Woodstock and Pomfret.

Committee members said they would read the bill and hear additional testimony. Several members indicated they may call legislative counsel back to answer follow-up questions about rights of way, easements and the practical effect of the proposed duty-of-care language. No formal committee vote on S.4 was recorded during the hearing; the agenda moved next to a Department of Motor Vehicles briefing.

The record of testimony on Feb. 12 includes sponsors, legislative counsel and representatives of motorized and nonmotorized trail organizations who urged the committee to prioritize the bill to prevent a patchwork of restrictions that could close access to multiple trails across towns.