Schuylkill County Commissioners on Wednesday said they have been in frequent contact with federal and state officials as they seek more information about the Department of Homeland Security’s reported purchase of a facility in Tremont Township that is intended to be used as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center.
During remarks ahead of public comment, Schuylkill County Commissioner Larry Padora said they have been communicating with the offices of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, U.S. Sens. John Fetterman and Dave McCormick, the Governor’s Office, and state lawmakers representing the area. Commissioners said they were asked to provide documentation related to potential tax revenue losses and infrastructure capacity, including water and sewer.
Commissioners said they have provided official documentation to regional directors for several offices and were told that federal officials are working on economic impact and engineering information. Commissioner Padora said he spoke directly with Meuser the morning of the meeting and was told the congressman met with DHS on Monday and Tuesday. County officials said they are attempting to arrange a meeting that includes elected officials “so we can get more information,” and indicated they plan to provide weekly updates at future meetings if new details emerge.
Commissioners also said they have raised concerns with federal officials about transportation impacts, local law enforcement capacity, emergency response, hospital access, and overall operational plans.
Officials cite infrastructure concerns; “capacity is zero,” commissioner says
During public comment and follow-up discussion, the proposed facility’s water and sewer capacity was a central theme.
In response to a question from a speaker, Commissioner Padora said the county was told that the “water capacity is zero and the sewer capacity is zero,” adding that it was documented and shared with federal offices. Commissioners said they sought official confirmation of capacity figures, rather than relying on informal conversations.
County officials also acknowledged concerns about the strain on local services if the facility becomes operational, including 911 dispatching, EMS, ambulance services, and area hospitals.
Residents urge stronger stance, cite tax and healthcare impacts
Several residents urged the commissioners to take a firm public position against the facility and questioned why county leaders did not engage earlier, pointing to news coverage and rumors circulating in December.
One speaker criticized what he described as a reactive approach and said the county should have pressed federal officials sooner. He also raised concerns about taxes, infrastructure, and the potential impact on public health.
Another speaker spoke about possible healthcare and emergency service impacts, stating that detainees who require advanced medical care would likely be transported to area hospitals and emergency rooms. She cited projections based on publicly reported national detention data and said she is concerned the facility could place additional strain on staffing and bed availability in a rural county. She also raised questions about reimbursement and costs borne by local hospitals.
Another resident said residents have repeatedly expressed opposition and concern over what she described as a “stealth manner” in which the transaction occurred. She referenced reported conditions at detention facilities and called for local officials to pursue avenues to stop the plan rather than “work with them.”
Another speaker said she has worked in prisoner advocacy and now practices as a property tax attorney, also urged the county to consider legal strategies used elsewhere. She asked commissioners whether they would commit to opposing the facility; a commissioner said the county wants additional information first but is willing to review information residents provide.
Other speakers echoed concerns about civil rights, due process, healthcare capacity, taxes, and long-term economic effects. One speaker suggested a community town hall and work group. Another resident said their school district could face a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue and worried that costs would be shifted to local taxpayers.
Commissioners reiterated that they are compiling questions and pushing for more concrete information. When asked directly if the county would state it does not want the facility, commissioners said they want key questions answered first and said they hope to have more information within “the next week or two.”
When pressed if Commissioners would go on record that they against the facility,