Skip to main content

MAC

Tax Abatement Toolkit

MAC has compiled a number of useful resources for listers, boards of abatement, and official with tax abatement responsibilities. These resources can be found left in this handy tax abatement toolkit. 

Publication Date
09/11/2024

Superior Court Upholds Town’s Domestic Animal (Livestock) Ordinance

January 01, 2023

He shudders his coat as if to throw off flies.
‘Whoever it is that leaves him out so late,
When other creatures have gone to stall and bin,
Ought to be told to come and take him in.’

from “The Runaway,” by Robert Frost

Calais Town officials have been telling the Defendant in the case Town of Calais v. Elisabeth Shedd, No. 22-CV-1894 (2022), to come and take her horses in for years, but to no avail.

Elisabeth Shedd (“the Defendant”) resides at an 11-acre, off-grid property in Calais consisting of two barns and two shelters for animals, all of which are in a state of disrepair. The property is also home to the Defendant’s four horses, which she attempts to confine with a rudimentary and substandard paddock made of saplings tied to fence posts with rope and twine. The horses have either escaped or been intentionally freed by the Defendant on dozens of occasions over the years and have been found wandering all around the town and on its roads at all times of the day throughout the year. In 2021 alone, the town constable/animal control officer received a total of 53 email complaints and an average of two telephone call complaints per week about her horses. Despite the countless complaints and fruitless attempts from the Town to get the Defendant to confine her horses to her property, the Town finally had enough and adopted an “Ordinance to Regulate Livestock Running at Large.” The ordinance did little to deter the Defendant, who continued to permit her horses to run at large, but authorized the Town to take action. After receiving numerous additional complaints that the Defendant’s horses were seen loose on Route 14 and running through peoples’ yards, the town constable/animal control officer impounded the horses for violating the Town’s ordinance. 

The Town brought this action in the Washington County Superior Court (“Court”) to enjoin (i.e., prevent) the Defendant from keeping horses or any other livestock at her property ever again. The Court denied the requested relief but only because doing so, “would be beyond the scope of the Ordinance itself, which contains no provision authorizing a permanent forfeiture of the right to keep livestock within the Town.” The Court, however, did permanently enjoin the Defendant from allowing her horses to run at large in the town and from taking her horses for walks on or along any of its roads without being under her physical control. The Court also permitted the Town to decide what the Defendant must do to get her horses back, including reimbursing the Town for its impoundment expenses (e.g., boarding, feed, and veterinary costs), all because their ordinance allowed it. According to the Court, such enforcement is possible because, by statute, municipalities have been granted certain regulatory powers, including the power to “define what constitutes a public nuisance, and to provide procedures and take action for its abatement or removal as the public health, safety, or welfare may require …” 24 V.S.A. § 2291(14). Declaring livestock, such as horses, running at large to be a public nuisance is “a reasonable exercise of the Town’s regulatory powers and falls squarely within the scope of its statutory authority.” As the Court rightly recognized, 

Having horses loose on a public road is a significant public safety hazard because of the serious risk they pose to drivers … An unattended horse can also pose a danger to neighbors, particularly children, who could be kicked, bitten or trampled by an unexpected horse on the loose in the yard. Horses can also cause property damage, and they can carry diseases contagious to other livestock on neighboring properties.

The case is a Washington County Superior Court decision so it is not legally binding on municipalities statewide, as a Vermont Supreme Court decision would be. Nonetheless, the case confirms our long-held opinion that selectboards may regulate the running at large of domestic animals1 as a nuisance, and not just under the self-executing authority of Title 20, Chapter 191. 

The outcome of this case is extremely encouraging news for any municipality that, like Calais, has perennial issues with livestock running at large. The financial penalties for these offenses under Vermont state law have been outdated for over a century, and the impoundment option is impractical for many municipalities. Being able to adopt a customized ordinance under their nuisance authority provides municipalities with the flexibility they need to tailor remedies to the specific problems their residents face.   

The Town of Calais v. Elisabeth Shedd case is archived at the Vermont Judiciary website. 

 

1 Domestic animals are defined as “cattle, sheep, goats, equines, deer, American bison, swine, poultry, pheasant, Chukar partridge, Coturnix quail, psittacine birds, ferrets, camelids, ratites (ostriches, rheas, and emus), and water buffalo.” 6 V.S.A. § 1151(2). 

Winter Road Maintenance

Are there certain roads the law requires towns to plow?
December 12, 2023

How does a town decide which roads to plow in the wintertime? Are there certain roads the law requires towns to plow? Is there a process towns are supposed to follow to make these decisions?

Whether a town road must be plowed depends upon its classification. A town must keep its class 1 highways “in good and sufficient repair during all seasons of the year.” 19 V.S.A. § 310(a). Accordingly, class 1 highways must be plowed and maintained through the winter.

On the other hand, a town may maintain its class 4 highways “to the extent required by the necessity of the town [or] the public good and the convenience of the inhabitants of the town.” 19 V.S.A. § 310(b). As such, a selectboard may decide which, if any, of the town’s class 4 roads will be plowed during the winter. The VLCT Municipal Assistance Center (MAC) recommends adopting a class 4 road policy that lists which, if any, class 4 roads will be plowed in the winter. See our Model Class 4 Highway Policy.

When it comes to the town’s class 2 and class 3 highways, the selectboard has some discretion over whether to provide winter maintenance in some cases. However, exercising this discretion must be based upon “safety considerations for the traveling public and municipal employees.” 19 V.S.A. §§ 302(a)(3)(B), 310(a). The process for making this decision is prescribed by state law, which we explain in detail in our Limiting Winter Town Highway Maintenance Info Sheet.

Ask MAC: Can Snowmobilers Travel on Town Highways? 

Vermont’s picturesque snow-covered winter landscapes inspire outdoor activities such as skiing, snowboarding, ice fishing, and snowmobiling. A favorite pastime of many Vermonters, snowmobiling can raise questions for municipalities. For instance, can snowmobiles be used on town highways? The answer is yes – to a certain extent. See 23 V.S.A. § 3206. Snowmobile operators have the right to travel on any town highway that is not maintained by the town in winter; therefore, if a town does not plow a town highway during the snow season, it may not prohibit snowmobile use on that highway. Additionally, snowmobiles may be operated on a town highway if the path of travel is located five or more feet from the plowed portion of the highway. However, this law does not apply to Class 4 roads or privately maintained trails. 

Snowmobiles may be operated on or across a town highway only when all the following conditions are met: 

  1. The crossing is made at an angle of 90 degrees to the direction of the highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing;  
  2. The operator brings the snowmobile to a complete stop before entering the traveling portion of the highway;  
  3. The operator yields the right of way to motor vehicles and pedestrians; and 
  4. The operator is 16 years of age or older, or, if 12 to 16 years old, is under the direct supervision of a person 18 years of age or older. 

These rights are granted by state law, which means a town must allow such snowmobile use. A town may, however, impose restrictions regarding the time, manner, and location of snowmobile operation. 23 V.S.A. § 3210; 24 V.S.A. § 2291(4). For instance, a town may – with some limitations – prohibit the operation of snowmobiles between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. See 23 V.S.A. § 3206(b)(20). Other restrictions related to time, manner, or location of snowmobile use include setting speed limits on snowmobile operation, prohibiting racing, or requiring single-file operation. Note, however, that the selectboard must impose any allowable restrictions through a duly adopted ordinance for them to be enforceable. Any ordinance regulating snowmobile use must be consistent with Vermont law. 23 V.S.A. § 3210. 

Snowmobiles may also be operated on any town highway that the selectboard has opened and so posted. 23 V.S.A. § 3206(b)(4). For a selectboard to “open” a highway, it can simply adopt a policy or pass a resolution (that is, take a formal vote) at a duly warned selectboard meeting that declares the highway open for snowmobile use. Regardless of the mechanism that the selectboard uses to “open” the highway, the selectboard must also have signage posted on the highway that provides notice that the highway is open to snowmobile travel. Signage must be in conformance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as required by 23 V.S.A. § 1025. 

The Municipal Assistance Center created its Model Snowmobile Ordinance and Guidance to help selectboards regulate snowmobiling within their towns and provide the means for selectboards to open additional town highways and sidewalks for snowmobile travel. 

Authored By
Carl Andeer
Staff Attorney II, Vermont League of Cities & Towns

Locally Elected Auditors Training

Each year, as municipal budgets grow and sources of revenue become more diverse, the task of auditing municipal financial records becomes more difficult. Current Vermont law doesn’t require locally elected auditors to have any education or experience in bookkeeping or accounting. This training will provide an overview of legal requirements of the annual elected auditors’ report as well as information to help elected auditors fulfill their responsibilities under Vermont law.

Subscribe to MAC