Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Brigham City to pursue reopening of South Canyon trail; staff outlines legal and jurisdictional limits
Summary
At the Brigham City Council meeting, resident Brian Connor asked the city to enforce a public right-of-way for a trail south of the canyon. City staff described jurisdictional complications and said staff will investigate options, including grant funding, while the legal path to a prescriptive right remains fact-specific.
Brian Connor, a Brigham City resident, asked the City Council on Sept. 4 to help reopen a trail along the south side of the canyon that connects Brigham City to Manaway. Connor said he has used the route for more than 15 years and told the council he contacted the Utah Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman, which cited Utah Code 72-5-104 as a potential legal basis for a public right of way.
"The road value statute, Utah code 72 dash 5 dash 1 0 4 states that the trail, road, or highway crossing private property can become a public right of way if it has been continuously used as a public thoroughfare for at least 10 years," Connor told the council, adding he and other residents have evidence of prolonged public use and are willing to provide donations of labor and materials to restore the trail.
City Administrator Derek McNairway and City Attorney Nicole Cottle responded during the meeting. McNairway said significant portions of the trail are outside Brigham City corporate limits and cross private and federal lands; the city has met with the private landowner and with a Forest Service liaison, who notified the city about federal removals over public-safety concerns. "There are large portions of this trail. ... It is actually not in the corporate limits of Brigham City," McNairway said.
Cottle cautioned that claims of a public prescriptive right are "very fact specific" and typically decided in court. She told the council that the code section Connor cited is under the highway system and "does not specifically call out a trail," though case law might apply in some circumstances. "Prescriptive rights ... would fall under more the case law jurisdiction," she said, adding that the court-level review turns on facts such as whether use was open, notorious and hostile to the property owner.
Public-safety concerns were cited by the private landowner and by federal land managers. Police and fire officials on the dais said they were not aware of reported injuries tied to the trail closures, and noted some segments appear unsafe because of steep or eroded sections.
McNairway said city staff will continue to work with property owners, the Forest Service and the county where appropriate, and will pursue grants and other funding to address public-safety improvements if the council directs staff to do so. "We're gonna try to figure out what we can do to get that thing open to the public," he said.
Why it matters: the trail connects neighborhoods and recreational areas, and several residents urged the council to protect long-standing public use. The city's response highlights jurisdictional limits: private parcels, federal lands and sections outside the city limit complicate unilateral city enforcement.
Next steps: staff said they will coordinate with the landowners and the Forest Service, investigate grant opportunities, and report back to the council with options. Connor told the council he and other residents can provide evidence of continuous public use and volunteer labor to help restoration work.
