GLENWOOD SPRINGS — A few people have accused the city of misrepresenting that there has been progress made toward obtaining easements for a trail to the southern part of town, but supporters say that’s simply not true.

In an e-mail to the media and city officials, Nicole Pray wrote, “There have been several misrepresentations made to the community that property acquisition has progressed successfully. This simply has not occurred, and property owners are more opposed than ever to the sale of their existing land for this purpose.”

The planned concrete trail would stretch from 27th Street south to near the Mountain Market and Three-Mile Creek, running between Hager Lane and the Roaring Fork River.

Pray said homeowners almost unanimously denied city offers in 2005 to purchase their land. Pray said she questioned the $4.5 million cost for the 1.2 miles of trail. Citizens would be outraged to learn about the price tag of the “already controversial” project that is unnecessary because of the newly constructed Rio Grande Trail, Pray said.

But Joe O’Donnell, a former city councilor who supports building the trail for safety reasons, said it’s simply not true that the city misrepresented progress toward getting the easements.

“That trail’s been in the planning stage for over 15 years. Anyone who lives along the river, if they just looked at their land titles, they’d see an easement,” he said. “We got the easements when the zoning was given on Hager Lane.”

He said the only easements the city doesn’t have are one at the Berg residence outside the city limits on County Road 156, an easement by the Mountain Market, and an easement by the site of the Roaring Fork Lodge, near where the Sunlight Racquet Club used to be.

But former city councilor Chris McGovern wrote in an e-mail that an annexation agreement mentions only a pedestrian trail, and says nothing about bicycles. Pray added that an originally proposed “nature trail” changed later to include a concrete path. Although the city does have rights to easements on many properties, she said the city needs 10 additional feet on a number of those easements, and has misrepresented that it’s close to obtaining them.

Supporters of the trail say it was planned in the early 1990s with voter-approved funding. They say Hager Lane residents live in homes built after the trail was planned, and should have known the zoning was obtained with the condition of a trail easement being granted to the city. Hager Lane residents say the bike and pedestrian trail would harm wildlife habitat, invade their privacy and cause problems like littering and vagrancy.

McGovern wrote that a “tremendous” amount of money has been paid to Loris and Associates for study and design of the trail. She called it a study sold to the community based on the representation that progress was being made toward obtaining the easements and said there has been no progress toward that goal.

She wrote, “$4 million … to build a mile and a quarter bike path is a totally irresponsible use of taxpayer moneys. There was never a city vote to spend $4 million on a mile and a quarter bike path.”

O’Donnell said the trail would provide a safe route where none currently exists from southern neighborhoods into town. He said people opposed to the trail represent a relatively small group compared to the trail’s supporters, and the trail would serve the greater good of the community.

The City Council voted in April 2007 to proceed with building the trail segment and gave city staff the option to pursue possible condemnation to acquire easements needed for the trail. The city hopes to purchase the remaining easements without using eminent domain to take the land.

Inez Berg, who with her husband owns the home at 193 County Road 156, wrote in e-mails to city officials that the couple, who live in Illinois, declined a city official’s offer in 2005 to purchase an easement across their property and were surprised to learn the city plans to “just build it.” She said the home was built in 1949.

“We have had no discussion of any kind except for an e-mail that I wrote to city council members last year protesting the bike path,” she wrote, adding the couple has no intentions of selling.

No one answered calls to the Berg residence Thursday. Community development director Andrew McGregor couldn’t be reached.

“Whether the city can use eminent domain on the Berg property or not is a question that hasn’t been answered,” O’Donnell said.

Berg wrote, “Our property is not within the city limits to begin with and technically not under city jurisdiction. This seems an irresponsible waste of time and funds in a community with many more pressing needs.”