An act relating to maintenance and use of legal trails
S.4 would clarify and expand municipal authority over “legal trails” in Vermont. The bill amends the town highways statutes to define trails as public rights-of-way that are not highways and to specify that municipalities may, but are not required to, maintain them. It also updates terminology throughout the chapter to replace references to selectmen with “legislative body” or “selectboard,” aligning the highway statutes with current municipal governance language.
The bill further authorizes towns, cities, and incorporated villages to adopt ordinances regulating the use of legal trails, including rules on what types of vehicles may use them. It states that trails are not highways and that municipalities are not responsible for maintenance of trails, including culverts and bridges, unless they choose to maintain them. The bill also says municipalities do not owe a duty of care to users of a trail that is maintained by the town, and it preserves local authority to reasonably regulate recreational trail use without creating new authority to condemn land for recreational purposes.
If enacted, S.4 would change Vermont law by expressly granting municipalities discretionary authority to maintain legal trails and by authorizing local ordinances governing trail use and vehicle access. It would amend provisions in 19 V.S.A. chapter 3 and 24 V.S.A. § 2291, affecting town highway administration, municipal powers, and the legal status of trails relative to highways. The bill would likely reduce uncertainty about municipal responsibility for trail upkeep and liability, while giving local governments clearer regulatory tools over trail use.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or voting pattern to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill text, the proposal appears to be framed as a clarifying and permissive local-control measure rather than a major policy shift. The overall tone of the introduced bill suggests support for municipal flexibility and management of trail use.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be municipal liability, maintenance responsibility, and user access restrictions. Municipalities may support the bill because it clarifies that trail maintenance is discretionary and limits duty-of-care exposure, while trail users, recreational advocates, or property-rights interests could be concerned about local ordinances restricting vehicle access or other uses. Another possible issue is the bill’s statement that nothing authorizes condemnation of land for recreational purposes, which preserves limits on government acquisition authority and may be important to landowners.