MOUNT HOPE, WV (LOOTPRESS) – Plans for a proposed RV park in Mount Hope’s Bailey’s Bottom area are on hold as city officials review a federal notice that the project would likely violate restrictions placed on the flood-buyout property.
A large crowd attended Tuesday night’s Mount Hope City Council meeting amid continued concerns about the proposed development. Residents have questioned the safety, location, cost and transparency surrounding the project.
The city received a letter July 7 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service concerning 66 Emergency Watershed Protection Program Floodplain Easements owned by the city.
According to the letter, the easements were conveyed to the United States in perpetuity and are intended to restore floodplains to natural conditions. The restrictions prohibit activities including placing buildings or structures on the land, altering vegetation, filling, leveling and diverting water.
“Installation of an RV park would be considered developed recreation and would also likely violate many of the above-listed restrictions and therefore would not be allowed under the EWP-FPE program,” the USDA letter states.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Councilwoman Patricia Conelly asked that the USDA letter be entered into the council’s minutes before reading a prepared statement regarding the project.
“The city of Mount Hope is bound by these deed restrictions,” Conelly said. “I do not understand why NRCS was not contacted early in this process to determine what was permissible and not permissible on the deed-restricted land.”
Conelly said the concern and anxiety experienced by affected property owners could have been avoided through greater transparency and earlier consultation with the federal agency overseeing the easements.
“It seems it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission,” Conelly said.
She also questioned whether engineering and other expenses were incurred before the city completed the necessary environmental review and asked who would be responsible if federal funding could not be used to cover those costs.
Conelly called for an independent investigation into the development of the RV park and related projects to determine whether officials deliberately provided misleading information while pursuing federal grants or whether the situation resulted from incompetence.
“It is my sincere hope that irreparable harm has not been done to the city of Mount Hope and our potential for future government grants, and that we do not face municipal liability,” Conelly said.
Connelly also praised residents who researched the easement restrictions and contacted government agencies with concerns about the project.
“You did your due diligence and may have protected the city from potential disaster,” Conelly said.
Conelly ultimately made a motion to move the proposed RV park out of Bailey’s Bottom and, if permitted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, pursue another location within the city.
Mayor Mike Kessinger said city officials need more time to speak with the agencies and funding sources involved before making a final decision.
“I think any decision we make at this point would be a premature decision, and we need at least this month to work out a lot of those details,” Kessinger said.
Kessinger said the USDA letter revealed additional information about the restrictions and created a significant obstacle for the project. However, he maintained that the city had not intentionally violated federal requirements.
“We’ve not done anything wrong as far as anybody goes or any of these federal agencies are concerned,” Kessinger said. “We’ve been granted the money from the federal government and from the state of West Virginia for these projects.”
Kessinger said the city’s priority is determining whether the funding can be preserved and used for another project if the RV park cannot proceed.
“At this point, I don’t know whether there’s an RV park or there’s not,” Kessinger said. “What I’m doing is trying to save the money that’s coming into the city.”
Conelly’s motion failed on a 3-2 roll-call vote with members Steve Brown and Patricia Conelly voting yes, and members Patty Logan, Tyrone Powell, and Richard Smith voting no.
Council members who opposed the motion said the city had received the letter only days earlier and should have additional time to review its options.
Kessinger said the city has until 2030 to use the funding and has been consulting with engineers and government agencies.
“Just give us 30 days to figure this out, to work with these agencies to see exactly what we can and can’t do,” Kessinger said. “Right now, at this point, it’s premature to do anything.”
During public comment, resident Mike Tessman criticized what he described as a lack of transparency and asked the city to provide regular updates to the public instead of waiting until the next monthly council meeting.
Tessman said he previously asked to photograph a conceptual drawing of the RV park but was not permitted to do so. Kessinger said he did not want preliminary information distributed as though it represented a finalized project.
Tessman also questioned why Bailey’s Bottom was selected without a viable backup location and whether engineering costs would be owed if the project did not move forward.
Kessinger said residents could contact City Hall and that an update would be provided at the next council meeting.
Other residents raised concerns about building an RV park on property purchased after previous flooding. One woman whose family had been involved in the flood-buyout process said property owners were originally assured that nothing would be built on the land.
Kessinger acknowledged that the project’s prospects had become uncertain following the USDA letter.
“At this point, I don’t know,” Kessinger said. “I mean, it doesn’t look good.”
He said the city had applied for and received funding to develop an RV park in the buyout area, but the easement language had now created a major issue that must be resolved.
“We need to take a breath, step back, figure out what we can do and move forward with that as a city,” Kessinger said.
Several residents said they opposed placing the campground beside existing homes, while another speaker defended RV owners and said campgrounds can coexist with residential communities.
Residents also suggested that the funding could instead be used for streets, sidewalks, recreational facilities, a community center, improvements at the stadium or Sugar Creek restoration.
Kessinger said the city is investigating whether the money may be reallocated.
“Where we’re at right now is we’re trying to preserve the funds to see where we can spend the funds, whether it be at the stadium, whether it be at Sugar Creek restoration — whatever we can do to try to preserve these funds and to reallocate those things,” Kessinger said.
Kessinger repeatedly asked residents to allow the city another month to communicate with its funding sources and determine which projects remain eligible.
“The whole idea of the RV park is really questionable in general,” Kessinger said. “Give us time to talk to the funding sources, refocus this, and come back next month and see what our options are.”
The Bailey’s Bottom RV park has not been formally canceled. However, no development is expected to move forward while the city reviews the USDA restrictions and determines whether the federal and state funding can be redirected.
