Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Site Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and Alto Rest Park object to Blair County—hosen prison site; commissioners advertise eminent-domain ordinance
Summary
Blair County Board of Commissioners on March 20, 2025 heard multiple public comments opposing the county—ommissioners' preferred site for a proposed new county prison and voted to advertise an ordinance signaling the county—xecutive's intent to take two parcels by eminent domain in Allegheny Township.
Get email alerts on the Prison Site Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blair County Board of Commissioners on March 20, 2025 heard multiple public comments opposing the county—ommissioners' preferred site for a proposed new county prison and voted to advertise an ordinance signaling the county—xecutive's intent to take two parcels by eminent domain in Allegheny Township.
The objections came from nearby residents and from Alto Rest Park Cemetery. Bonnie Miller, a long-time Blair County resident, told commissioners she and her husband have lived at 15 Hillside Drive for nearly 30 years and asked the board to consider a different, more remote site so their home would not "overlook a prison." "Just saying the words prison in my backyard makes my stomach churn," Miller said during public comment.
Jeffrey Behrens, vice president and general manager of Alto Rest Park Cemetery Association Inc., told commissioners the cemetery received a letter from the commissioners' office on Jan. 7, 2025 offering to purchase a 77-acre portion of the cemetery property for the proposed prison; the cemetery's board rejected that offer in a Jan. 17, 2025 response. Behrens said taking the 77 acres would "severely limit, if not completely hinder" the cemetery's ability to operate and expand and would affect more than 20,000 families who have plots on the grounds.
John McIntyre, a Frankstown Township resident, urged commissioners to consider a parcel off Route 36 in the Hollidaysburg School District that he said is for sale, is larger, and would not be adjacent to homes or businesses.
Commissioners responded that the site-selection process has been ongoing for more than a year and a half and that many parcels were evaluated. A commissioner said the county must weigh practical factors such as cost to extend utilities, transportation access to courts, and overall project expense. The commissioners' public comments also emphasized that some steps in the acquisition process must follow statutory procedures and that some matters are now between attorneys and therefore not for public discussion at the meeting.
After discussion, the board voted to advertise an ordinance indicating the county's intent to take fee-simple interests in two Allegheny Township parcels by eminent domain as a procedural step in the acquisition process. Commissioners described the advertisement as one step among many, and several speakers during the meeting urged the board to pause and consider other sites and additional information from affected property owners before moving forward. One commissioner said they would oppose the ordinance advertisement at the time of the vote; another commissioner asked to defer some related items earlier in the meeting but the eminent-domain advertisement motion was approved.
Why it matters: commissioners are taking an explicit, statutory procedural step that preserves the county's option to pursue condemnation if negotiations fail. Objecting residents and Alto Rest Park say their families, businesses and the cemetery's long-term operations would be harmed if the preferred site is used. The advertisement does not itself transfer property or start immediate construction; it initiates a legal process that could lead to condemnation only if later steps are taken.
Action and next steps: The advertisement of the ordinance to declare intent to take parcels by eminent domain will be published as required by law; the transcript records commissioners saying negotiations and further site assessments continue and that attorneys for involved parties are engaged. The county did not provide a timetable for final site selection or construction at the March 20 meeting.

