Skip to main content

MAC

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Tunbridge in Trails Case

Member for

3 years 5 months
Submitted by iminot@vlct.org on
hiking trail

Last October, in a case of widespread municipal importance (Echeverria et al v. Town of Tunbridge, 2026 VT 5, No. 25-AP-244), two owners of a property in Tunbridge appealed an Orange County Superior Court ruling that the town has the sole legal authority to determine whether and how to maintain and repair the legal municipal trails located on their property. In concert with the town’s legal counsel, VLCT submitted an Amicus Curae brief (Amicus) supporting Tunbridge and a municipality’s authority to maintain its legal trails. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court recently agreed and decisively reaffirmed a municipality’s authority to maintain its public rights-of-way such as its legal trails. 

A legal trail is defined in statute as a “public right-of-way that is not a highway and that (A) previously was a designated town highway having the same width as the designated town highway, or a lesser width if so designated; or (B) a new public right-of-way laid out as a trail by the select[board] for the purpose of providing access to abutting properties or for recreational use.”  19 V.S.A. § 301(8).   

Although the plaintiff landowners didn’t challenge the town’s authority to regulate and control the legal trails, they claimed that the legislature removed a municipality’s authority to maintain its legal trails with its 1986 amendments to the road classification statutes, and therefore only the landowners can determine maintenance of legal trails that pass through their property. Until this point, the uncontested conventional legal wisdom had been that selectboards have the exclusive authority to maintain their municipality’s legal trails. The Superior Court affirmed that understanding, and the landowners appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court (Court). 

In its decision, released on February 20, 2026, the Court disregarded this argument of the plaintiffs, explaining that “those amendments were intended to clean up Title 19 and not to alter the substance of its provisions.” The Court went on to explain that because a legal trail is a “public right-of-way,” defined as “‘[t]he right of passage held by the public in general to travel on roads, freeways, and other thoroughfares,’” the plaintiffs’ reading would make the statutory scheme “ineffective and superfluous” because it would defeat the purpose of a public right-of-way.   

The Court further explained that the other provisions concerning trails support the conclusion that municipalities retain the authority to maintain their legal trails. First, they discussed the statutory authority to “make regulations governing the use of pent roads and trails” (19 V.S.A. § 304(a)(5)), concluding that“[i]t would not make sense for a town to be able to regulate the use of a trail but not have the power to conduct the maintenance and repair required to support those uses.” The Court next discussed the statutory release from liability related to legal trail maintenance, repair, or lack thereof. 19 V.S.A. § 310(c). They likewise reiterated our Amicus explaining that if towns could not maintain their trails, there would “be no purpose in releasing towns from liability for failure to do so.”   

Finally, they addressed the plaintiffs’ argument concerning Dillon’s rule, which provides that “a municipality only has those powers and functions specifically authorized by legislature, and such additional functions as may be incident, subordinate, or necessary to the exercise thereof.” The plaintiffs argued that the legislature’s removal of any explicit authority for maintenance with the 1986 amendments means that Dillon’s rule prevents towns from maintaining trails. The Court, though, remained unconvinced. It again reiterated one of the primary arguments in our Amicus, explaining that “Dillon's Rule supports the conclusion that towns have authority to maintain trails because maintenance is incident to and implied by their statutory authority to define the uses for these public rights-of-way.”  

In addition to supporting the Town of Tunbridge with an Amicus in this case, VLCT, along with a coalition of outdoor recreation and trails groups, advocated for legislative action last session to protect municipal authority to maintain trails. In the miscellaneous Department of Motor Vehicles bill, Act 66 of 2024, the legislature included the language “It is the intent of the General Assembly to clarify municipalities’ authority to exclusively or cooperatively maintain legal trails under the provisions of 19 V.S.A. chapter 3”, which is effective April 1, 2026. Act 66 clarifies that legal trails “lie along public rights-of-way that were once town highways and are governed by the provisions of 19 V.S.A. chapter 3”. 

This is a great decision for towns because it affirms a town’s authority related to its legal trails, which is further supported by Act 66. This case also caused VLCT to rethink its Amicus policy.  We have expanded the scope of our policy to allow for the Municipal Assistance Center attorneys to support not only our municipal members, but also non-members, in cases that present an issue of widespread municipal importance. For more information on our Amicus policy or to inquire whether the Municipal Assistance Center can support your municipality with an Amicus email info@vlct.org.  

We sincerely thank the town of Tunbridge for fighting this case to the end in support of all Vermont municipalities’ authority to maintain their legal trails. 

Kail Romanoff, Esq.
Staff Attorney II, VLCT Municipal Assistance Center

Can You Reconsider/Rescind A Town Meeting Vote?

February 11, 2026

Yes. If a warned article is voted on at an annual town meeting, that article may be reconsidered or rescinded by the voters at a subsequent special town meeting warned for that purpose.  

Such a meeting may be called by either the selectboard, on its own motion, or by a petition signed by at least five percent of the town’s registered voters (this percentage can be increased to no more than 20 percent) and filed with the town clerk within thirty days of the date of the annual meeting. If a valid, voter-backed petition is filed on time, a special meeting must be warned and held within sixty days of the petition’s submission to the town clerk.  

An article is reconsidered or rescinded the same way it was originally voted on. A vote in favor of reconsideration or rescission taken from the floor is effective upon majority approval of those voting. A vote in favor of reconsideration or rescission of a question voted on by paper or Australian ballot is not effective unless the number of votes cast in favor of reconsideration or rescission exceeds two-thirds of the number of votes cast for the prevailing side at the original meeting (unless the voters approve a different percentage). 

A vote approved by the voters at its annual town meeting remains in effect unless it is rescinded or amended.

The voters cannot present an article voted on at the annual town meeting for reconsideration or rescission at more than one subsequent meeting within the succeeding twelve months, though there is no legal limit on the number of times a selectboard can present the same article to the voters.  

Regardless of who initiates the process, towns cannot reconsider or rescind the election of officers or nonbinding advisory articles. 17 V.S.A. § 2661.

Town Meeting Tune-Up

Watch our annual hybrid Town Meeting Tune-Up! A team of expert town moderators – Dan Manz (Underhill), Susan Clark (Middlesex), and Ed Chase (Westford, former) – deconstructs the annual town meeting process step by step, shares best practices, and facilitates peer-to-peer learning. Learn about the moderator’s role and responsibilities and how to moderate town meeting in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, 12th Edition (2020), Vermont law, and proven best practices.

How to Get An Item on the Selectboard Meeting Agenda Template

VLCT's "How to Get an Item on the Selectboard Meeting Agenda" template can be used by Selectboards to help establish a clear, transparent, and predictable process for getting items on the meeting agenda, which is essential for effective governance. By clearly explaining who may request agenda items, how requests are submitted, and when they are due, the template reduces confusion for board members, staff, and residents alike. This clarity helps prevent misunderstandings, frustration, and the perception that decisions are being made informally or behind the scenes.

The template also supports better meeting management. When agenda items are submitted with defined information and by a set deadline, the selectboard and staff have adequate time to prepare, review materials, and identify whether an item is ready for discussion or action. This leads to more focused meetings, more productive deliberations, and better-informed decisions. It also reduces the likelihood of last-minute additions that can disrupt meetings.

Equally important, the template reinforces transparency and fairness in public engagement. Residents and community groups are clearly told how to bring issues forward and what to expect after making a request. When requests cannot be scheduled immediately, the expectation of an explanation helps maintain trust and accountability.

Used as a handout and onboarding tool, it promotes consistency over time and strengthens confidence in the selectboard’s process.

Feel free to use VLCT's template as-is or adapt it for the needs of your board. You can customize the shaded blanks and specifics (meeting schedule, deadlines, contacts) to match your municipality’s practice, then save this as a 1-page handout in your Selectboard Onboarding Packet and on your website. The goal is to help you hit the ground running, not waste time reinventing the wheel!

How to Get an Item on the Selectboard Meeting Agenda

Publication Date
02/03/2026

2025 VLCT Compensation and Benefits Survey Results Dashboard

Report Highlights 

This is the first part of a three-part series summarizing selected results from the 2025 Compensation and Benefits Survey. 

Click on each tab in the interactive dashboard below to find representations of the data that shed light on key metrics, especially those related to municipalities’ 2025 annual meetings. Under each tab, charts provide an overall picture of the information listed. For more detail, hover over the charts to see data descriptions or use the diagonal arrow icon in the upper righthand corner to maximize and minimize a particular chart. In these views you can also sort, share information, filter relevant datapoints, and reformat charts.  

The survey conducted in the summer of 2025 garnered more responses than in any previous year, with 198 participants submitting data via the online questionnaire, payroll reports, and/or budget reports. The full report was released in October to be available for municipalities planning the next year’s budgets. The data used in this dashboard has been aggregated and summarized. We were unable to include some payroll and budget report submissions due to formatting errors. 

How to Access the Full Dataset

If you are a municipal officer or staff member of a municipality that responded to the 2025 survey (shown in the respondent list posted in the Compensation and Benefits Report page of the VLCT Store), you may request free access to the digital report by emailing info@vlct.org. VLCT members that did not respond to this year’s survey can purchase the report there at a discount. Non-members may purchase it there at full price.  

If your municipality was unable to participate in 2025, please plan to respond to the next survey, which is expected to open in early May 2026. 

Publication Date
11/23/2025

Delinquent Tax Collection 101

The legislature recently amended parts of the delinquent tax collection process. This session aims to reduce confusion around this complicated and frequently litigated field. It begins with an overview of the role and responsibilities of the delinquent tax collector and covers recent changes to the municipal property tax process, including when taxes become delinquent, issuance of the warrant, and calculating interest. This training will also address the legal requirements for notifying delinquent taxpayers, accepting payments, allocating partial payments, and record keeping.

2025 Fall Planning & Zoning Forum

The Fall Planning and Zoning Forum focus is on key initiatives shaping Vermont’s future in housing, land use, and community development. Viewers will gain insight into new funding opportunities, recent changes to Act 250, and the implementation of statewide housing legislation – all designed to support municipalities in their planning and zoning efforts. 

VLCT Submits Amicus Brief in Support of Tunbridge in Trails Case

Member for

3 years 5 months
Submitted by iminot@vlct.org on
"Amicus Curiae Brief" superimposed on photo of a trail in woods

In a case of widespread municipal importance (Echeverria et al v. Town of Tunbridge), two owners of a property in Tunbridge have appealed an Orange County Superior Court ruling that the town has the sole legal authority to determine whether and how to build, maintain, and repair the legal municipal trails located on their property.  

A legal trail is defined in statute as a “public right of way that is not a highway and that (A) previously was a designated town highway having the same width as the designated town highway, or a lesser width if so designated; or (B) a new public right-of-way laid out as a trail by the selectmen for the purpose of providing access to abutting properties or for recreational use.”  19 V.S.A. § 301(8).   

Until this point, the uncontested conventional legal wisdom has been that selectboards have the exclusive authority to maintain their municipality’s legal trails. The Superior Court affirmed that understanding, and the landowners appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court. 

VLCT MAC attorneys have filed with the Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief in support of the town’s position. The Vermont Attorney General’s Office and the Town of Pomfret have joined the fight and have also submitted their own amicus briefs in support of the town’s position.

At the lower court (Court), the plaintiff landowners claimed the legislature removed a municipality’s authority to maintain its legal trails with its 1986 amendments to the road classification statutes, and therefore only the landowners can determine maintenance of legal trails that pass through their property. The Court disregarded this argument, explaining that, as far back as at least 1921, it was clear that towns had authority to build and maintain their public trails. And even though some road “nomenclature change[d]” with the 1986 (and previous) amendments, the Court continued, there was never a suggestion in the legislative history that this authority was stripped from towns. Hence, today, it’s clear that trails “remain[] a form of public easement that the public ha[s] the right to use and that towns ha[ve] the right to build and maintain.”  Furthermore, the Court noted that it “would defeat the purpose of a public easement to locate the ‘right to control’ the easement not with the town but rather with the underlying landowner, and thus require the public to bargain with that landowner for the use of the easement.” Finally, citing data from VLCT’s 2024 survey of its members about legal trails in their municipalities, the Court noted the frequency with which towns are maintaining their legal trails for public use and explained that its decision is consistent with “more than a century of both legal precedent and practical experience.” 

Despite the Court’s thorough rebuke of their argument as well as the legislative amendment last session that makes it clear that towns have the authority to maintain their legal trails (see pg. 53 of Act 66 of 2025), the plaintiffs are appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. Because Act 66 is not effective until April 1, 2026, a favorable decision for the landowners before the Supreme Court would only affect trail maintenance performed before that time.  

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court in this case are scheduled for 10:45 AM Tuesday, October 14 in Montpelier.

At the request of the Tunbridge selectboard, MAC attorneys have filed with the Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief in support of the town’s position. The Vermont Attorney General’s Office and the Town of Pomfret have joined the fight and have also submitted their own amicus briefs in support of the town’s position. Oral arguments before the Court in this case are scheduled for 10:45 AM Tuesday, October 14 at the Vermont Supreme Court (111 State Street in Montpelier). A decision is expected sometime later this fall.  

Kail Romanoff 
Staff Attorney II 
VLCT Municipal Assistance Center

Subscribe to MAC