HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments through 1.27.2026 Brittney Harakal
From: Peggy Arnold <pegyarn@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:35 PM
To:Ward 2A4ward2a@laurel.mt.9ov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject:Annexation
Dear council representatives,
I am happy that you are my representatives. I have looked at MCA Title 7, chapter 2 part 42 through 47. 1
believe it is up to the council to.approve any and all annexations as stated in Title 7-2-4202. 1 am opposed
1
to this attempt to steamroll the annexation for the state mental hospital.The letter that the CAO sent to
the state was dated November 17 after the election.There are too many things to consider starting with
how close the proposed site is to a public school, a private pre-school, a private school,the public library
and the softball field. Other concerns are the impact to our infrastructure and traffic. Also that this
property will not bring in new property tax funds.Thank you for considering my concerns,
Peggy Arnold,
long time resident
2
Brittney Haralcal
From: Ward 2B
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:12 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: State Psychiatric Facility
Same as the one before. Please communicate to the City Attorney.
Thankyou!
From:Ward 2B
Sent:Wednesday,January 21, 2026 4:33 PM
TO: 'Samantha Mayes'<brown.samantham@gmail.com>
Subject: RE:State Psychiatric Facility
Mrs. Mayes;
Thanks for reaching out.
I do appreciate your communication and Understand your concerns.
I understand the three Yellowstone County Commissioners are upset. However; I have not had any
communications from them..
Nothing has yet been presented to the City Counsel
That's all I know.
Sincerely,
Brent
From:Samantha Mayes<hrown samantham@email com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:12 AM
To: City Mayor<citvmavor laurel mt gov>;Ward 1A<wardla@ laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.¢ov>;
Ward 2A<ward2a@Iaurel.mt.90v>; Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a0aurel.mt.ecv>;Ward 3B
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4B<ward4b. laurel.mt.gov>
Subject:State Psychiatric Facility
Good Morning! I hope this email finds you well.
I am just reaching out to see what can be done by Laurel citizens to stop the state psychiatric facility
from being built between Highway 10 and Golf Course Road.The buy-sell that was released last night at
the Laurel City Council meeting has that facility right in the middle of a residential area, right by our
houses, and near an Elementary school. I understand the need for anew mental hospital for the state,
1
but does it really need to be there? Laurel would be losing 114 acres of taxable land while using city
taxpayer-funded resources.This is a net negative for our small community. Instead of bringing in taxes to
fund our schools and community,this gives the state land that they can use with little oversight from the
Laurel City Council. I am so incredibly concerned about this plan, as it will drive down home values, drive
down the value of the Laurel Golf Course, and is close to an elementary school! Is there anything we, as
Laurel citizens, can do? Have you spoken to the state about this plan? Ryan and I are so worried about
the long-term impacts that this could have on our family. I hope there is something you or we can do to at
least get the facility built somewhere else in Laurel. It does not need to be in the middle of a residential
neighborhood, near school, and one of the economic drivers of our community.
Thanks for your time,
Samantha Mayes
z
Brittney Harakal
From:Samantha Mayes<brown samantham @gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 27, 2026 6:42 AM
To: City Mayor<cltvmavor laurel.mtgov>;Ward 1A<ward1a laurel mt.gov>;Ward 1B<ward16 laurel.mt.B0v>;
Ward 2A<ward2a@IaureLm[.eov>;Ward 2B<ward26@laurelmt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3B
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a6Dlaurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4B<ward4b Iaurel mt.eov>; Kurt Markegard
<kmarkegard @ lau rel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: State Psychiatric Facility
Good Morning-
As I am sure you each know,the school board last night came out in opposition to the plot of land for the
proposed mental health prison, as did County Commissioner Mark Morse. I encourage each of you to
watch the video to hear the opposition from our elected school board members, the commissioner, and
the community. I understand it has to go to the planning board first, but since we do not have public
contact information for the planning board, I will urge each of you to oppose this plan and vote against
the placement of a prison within yards of an elementary school.
Thankyou,
Samantha Mayes
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 8:12 AM Samantha Mayes<brown samantham@gmaAi Qam>wrote:
Good Morning! I hope this email finds you well.
I am just reaching out to see what can be done by Laurel citizens to stop the state psychiatric facility
from being built between Highway 10 and Golf Course Road.The buy-sell thatwas released last night at
the Laurel City Council meeting has that facility right in the middle of a residential area, right by our
houses, and near an Elementary school. I understand the need for a new mental hospital for the state,
but does it really need to be there? Laurel would be losing 114 acres of taxable land while using city
taxpayer-funded resources. This is a net negative for our small community. Instead of bringing in taxes
to fund our schools and community,this gives the state land that they can use with little oversight from
the Laurel City Council. I am so incredibly concerned about this plan, as it will drive down home values,
drive down the value of the Laurel Golf Course, and is close to an elementary school! Is there anything
we, as Laurel citizens, can do? Have you spoken to the state about this plan? Ryan and I are so worried
aboutthe long-term impacts that this could have on our family. I hope there is somethingyou orwe can
do to at least get the facility built somewhere else in Laurel. It does not need to be in the middle of a
residential neighborhood, near a school, and one of the economic drivers of our community.
Thanks foryour time,
Samantha Mayes
t
From:Samantha Mayes<brown.samantham@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 27, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Kelly Strecker<kstrecker@ I a urel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
Good Morning-not to bother you again but with the time crunch of the speed of all of
this,do you have a time frame on when that record request wi8 be reviewed?The state
generalLygives a response within 2 business days.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 8:37 AM Kelly Strecker<kstrecker@Laurel.mt.2ov>wrote:
Good morning,
I have forwarded your message to the appropriate personal.
Thanks
K LLU strecleer
Clerhlrreas�rev
C1tU of LRurel,, M9v tPMM
(406) 628-7431 extension 5100
From:Samantha Mayes<brown samanthamrngmail com>
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 8:26 AM
To: City Clerk<ylty l rkfull r t aov>; Civil Attorney<r'vilattornevala irel mt vov>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
Good Morning!
I would like to confirm receipt of this public records request.
Thankyou!
Samantha Mayes
On Fri,Jan 23, 2026 at 1:43 PM Samantha Mayes <brown samanthamCdgmail.com>
wrote:
I am writing in accordance with MCA 2-2-1003 to request all copies of any emails
and communications between Mayor Dave Waggoner,City Administrator Kurt
Markegard,the city council, or Michelle Baukman regarding the planning and
proposal of the new mental health inpatient facility in Laurel. Including proposals,
emails, discussions with the state, and memos.
Thankyou,
Samantha Mayes
j Laurel Resident
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1A
Sent Tuesday,January 27, 2026 2:55 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject FW: State Psychiatric Facility
Sara B. Naylor
CdRlct wnm rCu.,tivunl K'uNI
♦ J(b.511RBJ8B
♦ W'�v,bednrrinYg�n
From:Samantha Mayes<brown.samantham@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 27, 202612:54 PM
To:Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: State Psychiatric Facility
I appreciate your reply. I understand that this is not officially on the agenda, but since it is going to the
planning board and this directly impacts my family and our community, I will not wait until it is on the
agenda to reach out and will continue reaching out. Thank you for sharing my comments with the Mayor,
as he has yetto respond to any of my concerns or emaks.
On Tue,Jan 27, 2026 at 12:39 PM Ward 1A<wardlaCalht_rel mt 2oy>wrote:
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your outreach and for taking the time to share your perspective.As a City Counci I Member, I value
thoughtful public engagement and the role it plays in our civic process.
At this time,there is no formal matter related to this issue pending before the City Council,and therefore no
action currently before me for consideration.That said, I will ensure your comments are shared with the Mayor
and appropriate City staff and included for review as part of the public record.
t
Please note that public comment is most impactful during the designated comment period once an item is on the
agenda.You are welcome and encouraged to participate and to attend all duly noticed City Council meetings
should you wish to speak when the matter is presented.
Thank you again for your engagement and continued interest in the City's work.
Respectfully,
Sara B. Naylor
Cminvd 4cngxr t'u% arts ml wmA 1
♦ Nkt iWF0.1W
♦ wnilLad•uahnn
From:Samantha Mayes<brown.samantham@gmail.wrn>
Sent:Tuesday,January 27,2026 6:42 AM
To:City Mayor<citvmavor9Dlaurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.eov>;Ward 1B<wardlb@Iaurel.mt.sov>;
Ward 2A<ward2aCdlaurel.m[.eov>;Ward 2B<ward26 laurel.mt.eov>; Ward 3A<ward3a(dlaurel.mteov>; Ward 3B
<ward3b6DIaurel.mt.eov>;Ward 4A<wartl4aCdlaurel.mt.eov>; Ward 4B<waM4b(vtlaurel.mt.eov>; Kurt Markegard
<kmarkeearcI laurel.mt.¢ov>
Subject: Re: State Psychiatric Facility
Good Morning-
As I am sure you each know,the school board last night came out in opposition to the plot of land for the
proposed mental health prison, as did County Commissioner Mark Morse. I encourage each of you to
watch the video to hearths opposition from our elected school board members,the commissioner, and
the community. I understand it has to go to the planning board first, but since we do not have public
contact information for the planning board, I will urge each of you to oppose this plan and vote against
the placement of a prison within yards of an elementary school.
2
Thankyou,
Samantha Mayes
On Wed,Jan 21, 2026 at 6:12 AM Samantha Mayes <hrown.samantham@gmail.com>wrote:
Good Morning! I hope this email fi nds you well.
I am just reaching out to see what can be done by Laurel citizens to stop the state psychiatric facility
from being built between Highway 10 and Golf Course Road. The buy-sell that was released last night
at the Laurel City Council meeting has that facility right in the middle of a residential area, right by our
houses, and near an Elementary school. I understand the need for a new mental hospital for the state,
but does it really need to be there? Laurelwould be losing 114 acres of taxable land while using city
taxpayer-funded resources.This is a net negative for our small community. Instead of bringing in taxes
to fund our schools and community, this gives the state land that they can use with little oversight from
the Laurel City Council. I am so incredibly concerned about this plan, as it will drive down home values,
drive down the value of the Laurel Golf Course, and is close to an elementary school! Is there anything
we, as Laurel citizens, can do? Have you spoken to the state about this plan? Ryan and I are so worried
aboutthe long-term impacts that this could have on ourfamily. I hopethers is somethingyou orwe can
do to at least get the facility built somewhere else in Laurel. It does not need to be in the middle of a
residential neighborhood, near a school, and one of the economic drivers of our community.
Thanks for your time,
Samantha Mayes
3
Brittney Harakal
From: laurel MT <laurel-mt@municodeweb.com>
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 8:37 AM To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: Samantha Mayes
Submitted on Monday, January 26, 2026- 8:36am
Submitted by anonymous user: 71.85.191.45
Submitted values are:
Name Samantha Mayes
Address 1102 Duval Drive
Public Comment The lack of transparency the city is giving Laurel residents about the proposed inpatient
facility for the criminally insane is bothersome.There are also serious concerns aboutthe proposed site
itself. The location is in a residential area, adjacent to a school,youth softballfields, a golf course, and a
public library. It is also within a mile of the CHS refinery. Given current land values,this raises legitimate
questions aboutwhether the state may be overpaying for property that appears poorly suited forthis
purpose. In addition, I am requesting clarification regarding the site's proximity to nearby oil refineries or
related industrial facilities. Specifically, I would appreciate information on:Whether the proximity to
schools, an oil refinery, and public facilities was considered during site selection. Why did you not loop
Rep. Deming and Sen. Ricci into the decision-making process on this plan?Why not listen to our County
Commissioners? Do you have an evacuation plan in place if something were to happen at the refineM
How will you safely remove 32 criminally insane people from the facility without posing a danger to the
community? Have you even spoken to CHS aboutthis? Have you been in contactwith our school board
or superintendent about the placement so close to the school? If not, why?Wouldn't protecting our
children be the primary question to be asked here?Whether any environmental, air quality, or health
impact assessments have been conducted in relation to this site. Have you studied water tables? Have
you reviewed safety concerns related to the proximity of the refineM Have you done traffic studies?
Have you done tax studies? Exactly how many dollars will this pull from our already struggling schools?
What will happen to the real estate values in the area? Have you done economic studies?What will this
do to expansion in our city?We are limited geographically on where we, as a town, can expand-
residentially or commercially. Have you researched whether this will impact future expansion? Most
troubling is the apparent breakdown of the local governmental process.The majority of residents oppose
this plan, and our city does not have the tax base to absorb the infrastructure demands this facility would
create. Backdoor deals have been made without consultingthe Laurel community.We deserve answers.
I again what to know what role the city played in this decision, how Laurel was selected over other willing
communities, and—most importantly—how the voices of residents and elected officials are intended to
be heard.The continued lack of response only reinforces the perception that this process has excluded
the community most directly affected. I respectfully request a response addressing these concerns.
Thankyou foryour time and attention.
Email brown.samantham@gmail.com
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
t
httos //citvofleLiretmontana com/node/160 / bmi ion/3250
2
Kelly Strecker
From: Ward 2B
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 8:19 PM
To: Kelly Strecker
Subject FW: State Psychiatric Facility
Heythere.
More data that was communicated to me.
Thankyoul
From:Ward 2B
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 7:39 PM
To: 'Samantha Mayes'<brown.samantham@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: State Psychiatric Facility
Not at all.
I'll always listen.
From:Samantha Mayes<brown samantham@email.com>
Sent: Monday,January 26, 202612:25 PM
To:Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.aov>
Subject: Re:State Psychiatric Facility
As always thank you for response! I may become a name you dread seeing in your inbox :)
On Mon,Jan 26, 2026 at 11:53 AM Ward 2B <Ward2bCallaurel mt gw>wrote:
Hey Sam.
Thankyou for your comments and insight.
I do appreciate your concern.
Sincerely,
Brent
From:Samantha Mayes<brown.samantham@amail.com>
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 8:24 AM
To: City Mayor<c'tvmayor@laurel mteov>; Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.eov>; Ward 1B<Ward1b@laurel.mt.90V>;
Ward 2A<ward2a2laurel.mt.¢ov>; Ward 2B<ward26 laurel mt.eov>,Ward 3A<Ward3a@laurel mtRoy>;Ward 315
<ward3b@ laurelmt.eov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@IaureLmt.Bov>;Ward 4B<ward4b@laurelmteov>
Subject: Re:State Psychiatric Facility
t
Good morning,
I am writing again to follow up on my previous email regarding the proposed facility in Laurel.To sate, I
have received a response from a few of you, and for that I am very grateful. I know you are all just doing
your best, but after more thinking about this, I have some more questions. With such little information
we have, I urge the City Councilto stop this facility from proceeding as soon as possible.
As I outlined previously, after speakingwith Lee Deming, and our County Commissioners, it appears
that no local representatives were consulted or gave approvalforthis plan.What role did Kurt
Markeegard and Mayor Waggoner play in bringingthisto Laurel?
There are also serious concerns about the proposed site itself.The location is in a residential area,
adjacentto a school, youth softballfields, a golf course, and a public library. It is alsowithin a mile of
the CHS refinery. Given current land values, this raises legitimate questions about whetherthe state
may be overpaying for property that appears poorly suited for this purpose.
In addition, I am requesting clarification regardingthe site's proximityto nearby oil refineries or related
industrial facilities.Specifically, I would appreciate information on:
.Whetherthe proximity to schools, an oil refinery, and public facilities was considered during
site selection, and will be considered when it comes to annexation.
.Why did you not loop Rep. Deming into the decision-making process on this plan?Why not
Listen to our County Commissioners?
.Do you have an evacuation plan in place if something were to happen at the refinery? How
will you safely remove 32 criminally insane people from the facility without posing a danger to
the community? Have you even spoken to CHS aboutthis?
.Have you been in contact with our school board or superintendent about the placement so
close to the school? If not,why?Wouldn't protecting our children be the primary question to
be asked here?
*Whether any environmental, air quality, or health impact assessments have been conducted
in relation to this site. Have you studied water tables? Have you reviewed safety concerns
related to the proximity of the refinery? Have you done traffic studies?
•Have you done tax studies? Exactly how many dollars will this pull from our already struggling
schools?What will happen to the real estate values in the area?
• Have you done economic studies?What will this do to expansion in our city?We are limited
geographically on where we, as a town, can expand- residentially or commercially. Have you
researched whether this will impact future expansion?
Most troubling is the apparent breakdown of the local governmental process.The majority of residents
oppose this plan, and our city does not have the tax base to absorb the infrastructure demands this
2
facilitywould create. Backdoor deals have been made without consulting the Laurel community.We
deserve answers.
I am again requesting clarification on the city's role in this decision, how Laurel was selected over other
willing communities, and—most importantly—howthe voices of residents and elected officials are
intended to be heard.The continued lack of response only reinforces the perception that this process
has excluded the community most directly affected. At this point, because of the lack of information
comingfrom the state and the city, but with the information I do have from the County, I can only see
negatives to the placement of this facility and I urge you to oppose annexation.
I respectfully request a response addressingthese concerns.
Thankyou foryour time and attention.
On Wed,Jan 21, 2026 at 8:12 AM Samantha Mayes<bLQwn samantham@gma!Lcom>wrote:
Good Morning! I hope this email finds you well.
I am just reaching out to see what can be done by Laurel citizens to stop the state psychiatric facility
from being built between Highway 10 and Golf Course Road.The buy-sell that was released last night
at the Laurel City Council meeting has that facility right in the middle of a residential area, right by our
houses, and near an Elementary school. I understand the need for a new mental hospital for the state,
but does it really need to be there? Laurel would be losing 114 acres of taxable land while using city
taxpayer-funded resources. This is a net negative for our small community. Instead of bringing in taxes
to fund our schools and community,this gives the state land that they can use with little oversight from
the Laurel City Council. I am so incredibly concerned about this plan, as it will drive down home values,
drive down the value of the Laurel Golf Course, and is close to an elementary school! Is there anything
we, as Laurel citizens, can do? Have you spoken to the state about this plan? Ryan and I are so worried
about the long-term impacts that this could have on our family. I hope there is something you or we can
do to at least get the facility built somewhere else in Laurel. It does not need to be in the middle of a
residential neighborhood, near a school, and one of the economic drivers of our community.
Thanks for your time,
Samantha Mayes
3
Brittney Harakal _
From:Amber Zahn <blondie_locks09@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday,January 21,20261:41 PM
To:Civil Attorney<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: Psychiatric prison
t
S
A of just under one acre. tt o. o
3n) fencing surrounding A as statl
intain safety for the community.
UN I as
Send a Chat
0
The property circled in blue is where we live.What would you do if it were you? How would you feel?We
have two small children here.Their school is approximately four blocks away. This is absolutely
terrifying.
Yahoo M'-iP Search Organize Conquer
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:33 PM, Amber Zahn
<blondie Iocks09Qyahoo com> wrote:
My name is Amber Zahn.
This is the view from my living room. The living room in the house where I raise my small children.
Approximately four blocks east of here is their elementary school. Their dad was raised here. His
mother was raised here. But the view that I show you in these pictures is a farmers field. The same
farmers field in process of a buy/sell agreement for a psychiatric prison. I do not oppose the prison,
what I oppose is the location. Developing a prison here will drive down our property values. Our
neighbor's property values. Even with all of the security, it puts our family at risk. It puts the kids in the
school at risk. It puts laurel at risk. We don't even have the infrastructure to sustain such a facility.
We don't have the emergency services. This was a poorly thought out plan only reaching for gain at
the cost of the residents. We cannot afford to lose the value we have in our home, both monetary and
memory.
3
sit"/:=''`� � �' �1"�, •a �
t ,
:.ems=�.� t,r. � .�=�,�,;• � ,
^
I t
7-ad
I ,
16
_ r
�.,. ��_ :�:v-� I - I„ '`� -ems 4 a.. r '� -.��•
� •t. �1 ��'� ; :tit � ;;4
to
4..`1I
- „nrtn� 9/P'i {. �tFI,Y +•L`1''. � , _,•_`• yy� ;�� 1• ..}` , +r.
�. ram. � °ZC..�-• .:1
♦� C 1 st�.�•*'. l c `� 'k1�_ 1.
A 1,34
y�.J1' JJJ .,.y i �.r � •~ 1. `j ..
If
�•'��. ��' r�r .#t. .tea'• � r,F, " ��+�� �
, . '�� -� � ,.rj� -� c a 'fie 7 "
>Y
wgl
y7n
P
Atkl
J'
Brittne Harakal
From:Amber Zahn<blondie locks09@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday,January 21,20261:33 PM
To: Civil Attorney<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Psychiatric prison
My name is Amber Zahn.
This is the view from my living room. The living room in the house where I raise my small children.
Approximately four blocks east of here is their elementary school. Their dad was raised here. His
mother was raised here. But the view that I show you in these pictures is a farmers field. The same
farmers field in process of a buy/sell agreement for a psychiatric prison. I do not oppose the prison,
what I oppose is the location. Developing a prison here will drive down our property values. Our
neighbor's property values. Even with all of the security, it puts our family at risk. It puts the kids in the
school at risk. It puts Laurel at risk. We don't even have the infrastructure to sustain such a facility.
We don't have the emergency services. This was a poorly thought out plan only reaching for gain at
the cost of the residents. We cannot afford to lose the value we have in our home, both monetary and
memory.
1
L
;- MIry
i
_ ray •1q:'.
1 4�;
- - -t-
: --�-•-�" f No is
`��.!�fir' _ -t 2 P�•�- I RR� J
0
\.
)� � f, �'-fib .:�� •� ���.�`y.�,
t i
`rya
1• f
f; ,}}.,�,.:?� ',;Vi1�cy';,•: �,.
�� II J _�III A J•
,, '`''`��\\���\�� �� ���1 � �y�,,�.._ � ��� �V1��•�. ��,� t,6 ���r;�.fit.
' -•'1 � i' _ Ste. 1 el•.�i`'.'i
.. 1 .,f.;�,•f- ai 1,'y�`��J fir', �. .11 f' r, t� r'w,. ` '� .' '�` f •
+� . .Y r'. .1,� ,( s ' ..:, �, :�+1'� ,bhp.`' ' � �'�. .�••<q• `'�
•�•, t-_ �.. . , - t� •.:�I \..��.`'�.•Y JCL
Cam:•;,*f4pt���k':���
'Ir n
r
�;. .! �h �; It_• .� �
.B.. fs -�•�,tis .:!�5Q3�,G'�•, : • ~. �§;e.s•L:fil`� �,`r
sir• _ r_ .'�j ..'i��.�rrt� ��..:��.:� .
r M 'K
_ 4
`t
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 213
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:11 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW:Concerns regarding the proposed State Mental Facility
Hey Brittney;
Could I please askyou to deliver this to our city attorney?
Thankyou,
Brent
From:Ward 2B
Sent:Wednesday,January 21, 2026 4:18 PM
To: 'Patrick Kimmet'<pat.kimmet@outlook.00m>
Subject: RE: Concerns regarding the proposed State Mental Facility
Mr. Kimmet;
Good afternoon.
As far as the three Yellowstone County Commissioners and their opinions; nothing has been communicated.
Honestly,nothing has been presented to the City Counsel.
I appreciate your communication.
Sincerely,
Brent
From: Patrick Kimmet<oat klmmet@outlook com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 20, 2026 3:50 PM
To:Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.¢ov>;Ward 3B<ward3bfotlaumi.mt.eov>; Ward 4B
<ward4b@ la u rel.mt.gov>
Subject:Concerns regarding the proposed State Mental Facility
Tom, Brent,Casey, and Richard
Today at Rotarythe 3 County Commissioners expressed very strong opposition to the new State Mental Facility
being discussed for Laurel. They indicated that the Laurel City Council has to approve the annexation so you folks
are critical to whetherthe faciLity is built in Laurel. I am not familiar with aLL the pros and cons of the faciLity and
don't know the issues enough to support or be opposed at this time. However,they were opposed so stronglythat
I wanted to encourage you to at Least consider their input before a vote.
1
I live outside the City of Laurel so I am not in any of your Wards but since I know each of you (at least a little!)it
seemed appropriate to give you this feedback.
My thanks to all of you for serving our community!
Pat Kimmet
406.860.3533
2
Council Member Jodi Mackay
Ex Parte Communication Log
RE: Montana State Mental Health Hospital
December 2,2025(Tuesday)
Cell from Mara Silvers of the MT Free Press(406)459- 1807
1 did not answer and she left a voice mail asking for comment on the proposed mental health hospital
in Laurel.She noted the type antl capacity of the facility and the fact that an annexation request had
not been made.She noted"there's lots of moving pieces here."
I repled via text that same clay saying,"Hi Mari.Thank you for reaching out. I'd like to hold comment
until we have our Council meeting this evening. I'm hop Ingwe receive more information.Thank you.
Jodi Mackay."
December 19,2025(Friday)
Text from Mara Silvers of the MT Free Press
"Hi Jodi, hope you're doing well.This is Mara from Montana Free Press.lust wanted to see if the city
council has received any notice of an annexation request from the state on this issue. I know they
said they'd notify you if they made a purchase.Thankyou!"
I replied via text on Sunday, 12/21/25 saying,"1 have no new Information to share. Please reach out to
Mayor Waggoner,CAD Markegard or Attorney Braukmann for updates"
January 15,2026(Thursday)
I attended the Beartooth RC&D board meeting as a new member.When I introduced myself and
shared some of the projects and happenings in Laurel,Zoey Shoop(Field Rep for Congressman Troy
Downing),asked if there were any updates regarding the State Mental Health Hospital. I told her I
could only speak to what was already public knowledge and that I could only speak for myself as a
Council Member.I told the group that Council had received no further information and had largely
been out of the loop with discussions and planning.
At the end of the meeting,Billings City Council Member,Dr. Mark Nicholson,approached me to
discuss the MH Hospital. He said to note that it is the Board of Investments behind the hospital and
they will want to ensure it turns a profit. He encouraged Laurel to make sure it gets what it needs
through the process.He does not have concerns about public safety, but is concerned about
providing housingfor the influx of necessary staff.We discussed that DPHHS was not involved clue to
Losing its certification at the other State MH hospital,hence the involvement of BOIL Dr.Nicholson
noted the need for the facility and encouraged conversations with Mike yakawich to further
understand the intentions.
During either interaction, I did not express an opinion for or against the MH hospital.I did note that
the lack of City Council and community involvement and information has soured community
members and did not seem to be a good way to introduce such an undertaking.
January 21,2026(Wednesday)
I, alongwith City Leadership and State representatives, received 2 emails regarding Tuesday's
announcement from Dan Villa that property had been purchased west of Laurel for the MH hospital.
From Ms. Mayes to:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mtgov>;Ward 1A<wardl a@taureLmtgov>;
Ward 1B<waml b@Iaurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@laureL.mt.gov>;Ward 2B
<ward2b@laumLmtgov>;Ward 3A<ward38@LeureL.mt.gov>;Ward 3B<ward3b@Lauret.mLgov>;
Ward 4A<ward4a@laureLmtgov>;Ward 4B watd9p-@LBUreL TJ.9P t
My Response:"Ms. Mayes,
Thankyou for reaching out and expressing your concerns regarding the proposed Mental Health
Facility in our community. I greatly appreciate your involvement and willingness to reach out to those
that represent you.
As this process moves forward,there will hopefully be more opportunities to express your concerns
not only to City Leadership but to our State representatives and those championing this hospital.As
you know, each City Council meeting has an opportunity for public comment.When the annexation
application is submitted, I believe it goes to the City County Planning Board f mt.Those meetings are
public.When it moves to Council,there will be a Public Hearing with opportunity for public
ccmMont.Meeting dates,agendas and packets can be found here:
ItSps:[Jf'tynll . t tana,co / alentl r.The State has developed awe bolts with FAQ's and
pertinent documents. It maybe a good resource for further information-htt / hL-5mt¢Qy1.
I encourage you to stay active,Involved and Informed.
Thank you for your concern and commitment to our city.
Sincerely,
Council Member Jodi Mackay
Ward 4a"
From Ms. Hill to:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1 A<wardta@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward
1 B<wardl b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@laureLm1.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@laureLm1t.gov>;
Ward 3A<werd3a@Iauret.mt.gcv>;Ward 3B<ward3b@laure1-mt.gov>;Ward 4A
<ward4a@laurel.mtgov>;Ward 4B<ward4b@laurel.mtgov>;Vince.Ricci@legmtgov;
Lee.Deming@legmt.gov;governor@mt.gov
My Response: "Ms. Hill,
Thankyou for reaching our and expressing your concerns regarding the proposed Mental Health
Facility in our community.I greatly appreciate your involvement and willingness to reach out to those
that represent you.
As this process moves forward,there will hopefully be more opportunities to express your concerns
not only to City leadership burro our State representatives and those championingthis hospital.As
you know,each City Council meeting has an opportunity far public comment.When the annexation
application is submitted, I believe it goes to the City County Planning Board first.Those meetings are
public.When it moves to Council,there will be a Public Hearing with opportunity for public
comment.Meeting dates,agendas and packets can be found here:
SSR ;/s�S)-1X fl I ccm& I n ar.The State has developed a webslte with FAQ's and
pertinent documents.It maybe a good resource forfurther information-htt� to �.
I encourage you to stay active, involved and informed.
Thank you for your concern and commitment to our city.
Sincerely,
Council MemberJodi Mackay
Ward 4a"
January 23,2026(Friday)
Ms.Mayes replied to my response:"Thank you so much for your response.I am deeply frustrated
with the lack of coordination here-it feels like the state,the county,the Mayor,the City Administrator,
and the Council are all operating on separate spheres,and it makes it harder to get reliable
information.That is by no means a criticism-I think in a lot of ways it lathe Council that is receiving
the brunt end of this deal. I have noticed that our Mayor is liking comments on Facebook in support
of the facility-that makes me wonder if he and Markeegard are working with the state in ways that
they have been less than forthcoming about.I also have heard from Rep. Damming that if the council
chooses to vote against annexation,this whole plan will be stopped. In that case,if a vote for
annexation comes to you, I respectfully ask that you consider a vote against annexation. I have yet to
see an argument that clarifies what good this will bring to Laurel.The employees that work in a facility
like this Will not live in Laurel-we don't have the housing.This will not bring In any income tax to fund
our schools or our public services.Additionally, I have yet to see a clear argument on why this land in
particular,when there are multiple other plots of land in our area that could accomplish the same
goals that are not so close to a school,a public library, our great Golf Course,a youth softball field,
and in one of our higher-taxable residential areas. I plan to be at every meeting I can,and I also plan
on continuing to contact all in our government that have any say in this decision.
From the bottom of my heart, I really appreciate all you and the council da for Laurel. I appreciate
yourtime,
Samantha"
January 22,2026(Thursday)
VOIcemall from Sidney Walton-1102 Cherry HIIts Drive."I was interested in your take on the new
forensic hospital and 1 wanted to give you my input as I hope that any and everything you can do to
make sure it doesn't happen,I would appreciate it. I do not feel that it's a bedroom community to
Billings that It's any, it would benefit us in anyway,and I reallyfeel that people would be reluctant to
move herewith that type of a facility.Um,I would gladly speak at a city meeting.I would do anything
you need me to do.I feel that adamantly about It.Thank you and have a good day.Bye."
Responded via text message:"Hi Sidney.This Is Jodi Mackay.Thank you for reaching out and sharing
your concerns.Given that this will ultimately be a land use matter I'm not at liberty to discuss my
personal opinion regarding the facility. However, I am listening to what the people of Laurel have to
say and I appreciate their involvement in the process. Every City Council meeting has an opportunity
for public comment.Council meetings are every Tuesday(except the 5"Tuesday)at 630 pm at City
Hall.When the State applies for annexation to add the property to city limits, it will go to the City
County Planning Board.Those meetings are public.After it goes through Planning,there will be a
Public Hearing on the annexation.This will be another opportunity to comment.you can find meeting
agendas and packets on the"calendar"tab of the City's website.You can also reach out to your local
state representatives(Deming and Ricci)and/or Daines, Downing and Gienforte.Again, I appreciate
you reaching out.I will ensure your comment is added to the public record.
January 26,2026(Monday)
Voicemail from Richard Swanson-"Uh,Richard Swanson,the,um,mental health facility coming to
Laurel. Um,yes,this many message is for,uh,Jody.Um,city council ward number four. Concerning
the mental forensics slash hospital,state of Montana hospital that's coming to Laurel. Um,
expressing a desire that if the council has, um, has something in front of it,like annexing!n the
property,that would be very key into whether or not this facility does come to Laurel or not.that in
that event,that,um,a lot of time and effort is spent in contacting and visiting with,having meetings
with,of people inside your district, um,inside your ward,so that when you do cash your vote,that
you will follow the general,the, 1 guess,the overall wishes of of your constituents.Thank you very
much for your time and consideration.Bye."
Responded via text message:"Hello.This is Council Member Jodi Mackay.Thank you for reaching out
and expressing your thoughts.I am very interested in hearing what the constituents have to say on
this matter and I do intend on listening to their thoughts.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me."
January 26,2026(Monday)
1,along with City Mayor<citymayor@IaureLmt.gov>;Wartl 1A<wardl a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1 B
<wardl b@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@laurelmt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@Iaurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 3A<ward3a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 3B<ward3b@IaureLmt.gov>;Ward 4A
<ward4a@1aure1.mt.gov>;Ward 413 ward4b@laurel rim.gov, received another email from Samantha
Mayes
January 27,2026(Tuesday)
1, along with Ward 1A<wardl a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 1 B<wardl b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2A
<ward2a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward21b@laureLmt.9ov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@IaureLmt.gov>;
Ward 3B<ward31b@Isure1.mt.gov>;Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mtgov>;Ward 4B
ward4b@Lauml.mt.gov; Kurt Markegard<kmarkegard@laurel.mt-gov>; City Mayor
citymsyor@laureL.mt.gov received an email from Kris Vogele.
My response:"Mr.Vogele,
Thankyou fortaking the time to reach out and express your concerns regarding the proposed State
project.I appreciate the time you took in composing your thoughts and the extra documentation you
provided.
I can assure you that I am listeningto what our community has to say and I appreciate the
engagement.
Sincerely,
CM Jodi Mackay
Ward 4a"
January 27,2026(Tuesday)
1, a l.ongwith City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A<word1a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward iB
<ward1 b@LaureL.mt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@LaureL.mt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@l8ure(.mt.gov>;
Ward 3A<ward3a@Lauret.m1.gov>;Ward 3B<ward3b@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 4A
<werd4a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4B<ward4b@laureL.mt.gov>; Kurt Markegard
kmarkegard@laureL.mt.gcv received another email from Samantha Mayes.
My response: Ms. Mayes,
Thankyou for sharing this Information.
I wanted to send this link with the contact Information forthose that serve on the City County
Planning Board lh[to &UCNoftourelmo�na com/bc-cccu).Also, ifyou click the calendar Link, it wiLL
take you to a monthly calendar that WILL have the next City County Planning Board meeting Listed.
They're Last meeting was 1121 and I think they are scheduled for the V Wednesday of each month.
Once the agenda is set, it should show up on 2118.
Thankyou,
CM Mackay
January 27,2026(Tuesday)
I,along with Richard KLose received an email from Robert Dupuis:
"In my opinion,this is a very bad idea to Locate this facility in our Id Le town of Laurel. My wife antl I
have been homeowners here since 2017.Laurel.isn't perfect,but bringing aLL the probLem people
from all over the state here is not the kind of population growth that is beneticiaL to our community.
Surely,there are other options availebLe.....Like expanding the existing facility at Warm Springs.
Let's not ruin Laurel for the sake of whoever is benefitti ng from this decision.
Sincerely,
Robert Dupuis"
My response: Mr.Dupuis,
Thankyou for takingthe time to reach and share your concerns regardingthis facility. I genuinely
appreciate your engagement.
Sincerely,
CM Jodi Mackay
Ward 4a
January 27,2026(Tuesday)
I,along with Ward 2B<ward2b@IaureL.mt.gov>;Ward 4A<ward4a@taureL.mt.gov>;Ward 1A
<wardl a@Laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1 B<wardl b@Laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@LaureL.mt.gov>;Ward 3A
<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3B wad-aIt ba ry-e1 mt_eov, received an emaiL from Samantha Mayes with a
doc attached from a State records request with a letter to the State from Kurt regardingthe listed Woods'
property.
"Good afternoon-
I thought you all might find this public record email helpful in understanding what happened with the [and
proposal. Here you gave the city administrator, on behalf of land,offering up the woods land to the state.
Despite claiming to the press that he had no idea why the state was looking at Laurel during the December
4th meeting.
Tuesday,Chief Administrative Officer Kurt Markegard said the city learned of the decision only after the public
announcement was made.
'The state did not send me information on it. I had to go seek ft once it went to the press,' Markegard said
duringthe meeting:'
Attached letter:
From: Kurt Markegard<kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>
Sent: Friday,August 22,2025 2:44 PM
To:Brereton,Charlie<Charles.Brereton@mt.gov>;Osmundson,Ryan<Ryan.Osmundson@mt.gov>;Ville,
Dan<DVitla@mt.gov>
Cc:City Mayor<citymayor@Iaurel.mt.gov>
Subject: RE: Laurel propertyfor new state facility D02801
To you at[,forgive me for missing an L in the spotting of Laurel.
Kurt
From: Kurt Markegard
Sent: Friday,August 22,2025 2:46 PM
To:'charles.brereton@mt.gov'<charles.brereton@mt.gov>;'Ryan.osmundson@mt.gov'
<Ryan.osmundson@mt.gov>; 'dan@mt.gov'<dan@mt.gov>
Cc:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Laurel property for new state facility D02801
Mr.Brereton, Mr. Osmundson, Mr.Villa,
On behalf of the City of Laura's Mayor, I am emailing you to let you know about a potential site forthe new
State of Montana mental health facility.
The property isjust west of the Laurel city limits and with the start of the development of a Love's Truck Plaza
just west of the city,there will be new
water and sewer services installed as pan of the truck plaza. Love's is investing 2.4 million installing new
water and sewer lines to their property
and the property depicted in the attached pictures and below in this email will benefit by having a 12-inch
water main and an 8-inch sewer line run
past this proposed property.
As a certified building inspector, I know what the state will need forwater and sewer services to develop a
building that will meet current building
standards. Having a water line of 12 inches would allow anyfacility the ability to sprinkle the building to
protect from fire spread.I believe that
Laurel will have the necessary infrastructure adjacent to this property including gas and electric services than
the other sites that have been
considered.I realize that the state has limited funds to build such a facility but having all utilities close by
would allow the state to purchase property
that is currently listed for sale.
This site also has the benefit of havingthe old interstate interchange that was deeded to the City of Laurel
after the State DOT built a new on/off
interstate ramp further west.The city was granted this parcel from the Montana Department of Transportation
and is 120 feet in width.The state
had plans to demolish the asphalt,and I requested they deed it to Laurelfor access to our land that is just
north of the interstate.This old interstate
on/off ramp would make an excellent access road far the new facility.Or the State could remove the asphalt
and seek the propertyfrom city making
the parcel even larger for facility expansion.
I have researched the necessary zoning needed to allow for a facility of this type and with annexation into the
City of Laurel,the state could request
a zoning designation of"Public"which would allow the facility to be built at this location.The property to the
south is county zoning heavy industrial
and this property is currently zoned county highway commercial. Residential development is sparce in the
surround area.
The Mayor of Laurel would like to invite you all to a teams meetingto further discuss the potentialfor the
proposed site to become the home of a
new state facility.Please let me know if the state will consider discussingthis site with us. Please look over
the included information and pictures
and consider this site as the best site in Yellowstone Countyto build a facility.The property is currently on the
market to be sold. I did check with
the listing agent yesterday and it is available.
The Mayor and I look forward to further discussions.
Kurt Markegard
Chief Administrative Officer
City of Laurel, Montana
406-628-4796 ext.5305
Council Member Sara Naylor
Ex Parts Communication Log
RE:Montana State Mental Health Hospital
January 21,2026
I,along with City leadership and State representatives, received 2 emails regarding Tuesday's
announcement from Dan Villa that property had been purchased west of Laurel for the MH hospital.
From Ms. Mayes to:City Mayor<citymayor@taureLmt.gov>;Ward 1A<wardla@IaureL.mt.gov>;
Ward 1B<wardl b@laufeLmt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@taurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2B
<ward2b@18unaLmt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@1aurel.rm gov>;Ward 3B<tverd3b@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 4A<ward4a@1aurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4B ward4b@1aJJmLnJtgQY
Good Morning! I hope this email finds you well.
I am just reaching out to see what can be done by Laurel citizens to stop the state
psychiatric facilityfrom being built between Highway 10 and Golf Course Road.The
buy-sell that was released Last night at the Laurel City Council meeting has that
facility right in the middle of a residential area, right by our houses, and near an
Elementary school. 1 understand the need for anew mental hospital for the state,
but does it really need to be there? LaureLwould be Losing 114 acres of taxable Land
while using city taxpayer-funded resources.This is a net negative for our small
community. Instead of bringing in taxes to fund our schools and community, this
gives the state Land that they can use with little oversight from the Laurel City
Council. I am so incredibly concerned about this plan, as it will drive down home
values, drive down the value of the Laurel Golf Course, and is close to an
elementary school! Is there anything we, as Laurel citizens, can do? Have you
spoken to the state about this plan? Ryan and I are so worried about the long-term
impacts that this could have on our family. I hope there is something you or we can
do to at least get the facility built somewhere else in Laurel. It does not need to be in
the middle of a residential neighborhood, near a school, and one of the economic
drivers of our community.
Thanks for your time,
Samantha Mayes
I did not respond.
From Ms.Hill to:City Mayor<citymaycr@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 1A<wardl a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward
I<wardl b@taureL.mt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@IaureLmt.gov>;
Ward 3A cward3a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3B<ward3b@1auret.mt.gov>;Ward 4A
<ward4a@13uret.mt.gov>;Ward 4B<ward41b@IaureLmt.gov>;vince.Ricci@tegmt.gov;
Lee.Deming@tegmt.gov;gQyam2iJRMA gov
Dear City Council Members and State Representatives,
I am writing as a concerned,tax-paying community member to strongly oppose the proposed
annexation and placement of a state mental health facility in the middle of our town,surrounded by
homes,schools,and other public buildings.
This proposal is neither a safe nor a cost-effective decision for our community.Placing a large-scale
mental health facility in a densely populated residential area raises serious concerns about public
safety,emergency response capacity,and the overall well-being of nearby families and children.
Schools,neighborhoods, and public spaces should not be placed at risk due to poor site selection
for a facility of this nature.
Additionally,this project provides little to no financial benefit to our city.The facility will not generate
sufficient tax revenue to support or improve our local schools, roads,water systems, or other critical
infrastructure.At a time when our community is already strugglingto maintain and upgrade essential
services,this proposal would piece add Itional strain on local resources without providing meaningful
financial support in return.
Equally troubling is the lack of long-term resources and funding commitments from the State of
Montane to adequately sustain a facility of this scale.Without guaranteed staffing,funding,and
ongoing operational support,the burden will inevitably fall on the city—our emergency services, law
enforcement,healthcare providers,and taxpayers.
The lack of transparency from the state throughout this process raises even greater concern.Limited
communication,unanswered questions,and vague assurances do nothing to build public trust.
Instead,this absence of clear and open information creates the impression that critical details are
beingwithhetd.When decisions of this magnitude are made without full transparency, It undermines
confidence and leaves community members feeling ignored and misled.
Furthermore, placing this facility in the heart of town will significantly impact current home and land
values. Many residents have invested their life savings into their properties,and this decision
threatens to devalue those investments and destabilize our community.
It is also important to note that other cities applied for this facility and have suitable land,
appropriate zoning,and the capacity to house it in locations that are not directly in the middle of
residential neighborhoods.Those locations are far better suited for a facility of this nature and would
not place it in immediate proximity to homes,schools,and public spaces.
I strongly encourage the City Council and our State Representatives to listen to us—the tax-paying
members of this community.We are the people who live here, miss ourfamilies here,and support
this city through our taxes and civic involvement.We do not want this mental health facility placed in
our community in this location.
For the safety,financial stability,and tong-term well-being of our town, I urge you to not vote to
annex this property and to reject this proposal. Please act in the best interest of our community and
pursue alternative locations that are more appropriate and better equipped to support such a facility.
Thankyou foryour time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Hill
Concerned Community Member
My response:
Thank you for your outreach and for taking the time to share your perspective.As a City Council
Member, I value thoughtful public engagement and the role it plays in our civic process.
At this time,there is no formal matter related to this issue pending before the City Council,and
therefore no action currently before me for consideration.That said,I will ensure your comments are
shared with the Mayor and appropriate City staff and included for review as part of the public record.
Please note that public comment is most impactful during the designated comment period once an
item is on the agenda.You are welcome and encouraged to participate and to attend all duty noticed
City Council meetings should you wish to speak when the matter is presented.
Thank you again for your engagement and continued Interest in the City's work.
Respectfully,
January 23,2026
I along with Ward 1A<wardl a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 1 B<wardl b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2A
<ward2a0l8urel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3B<ward3b@laureLmt.gw>;Ward 4B
ff4cd4bgllau L t ¢ov received another email from Samantha Mayes.
Good Morning!
I am writing to follow up on my previous email regardingthe proposed facility in Laurel.To sate, I have not
received a response,which is deeply concerning given the scale and impact of this project and the level of
opposition and confusion within our community.
As I outlined previously,after speakingwith Lee Deming,Vince Ricci,and our County Commissioners,it
appears that no local representatives were consulted or gave approval for this plan.Our City Council and
Mayor's office have all stated that this proposal moved forward without council discussion,without adequate
research into Laurel's infrastructure capacity,and without engagement with the community.This stands in
stark contrast to other communities—such as Hardin, Miles City, and Columbus—that have offered land and
services for this facility. Even Rep. Deming has said that he has been kept in the dark and cannot gel answers
on any of this.
There are also serious concerns about the site itself.The proposed location is in a residential area,adjacent
to a school,youth softball fields,a golf course,and a public library.Given what I understand about recent
land values,it raises legitimate questions about whether the state is overpayi ng for land that is poorly suited
for this purpose.There are plenty of plots of land that are not so close to these areas,and I just need to know
why this land.
I would like to know why this land-what are the benefits of this placement,what are the benefits of bringing
this facility to Laurel at all?Have water tables been studied?Have we done traffic studies?Reviews on
environmental impact or neighborhood compatibility?
I am again requesting clarification on your committee's role in this decision, how Laurel was selected over
other willing communities,and—most importantly—how the voices of tocaI residents and elected officials
are Intended to be heard.The continued lack of response only reinforces the perception that this process has
excluded the community most directly affected.Furthermore, as of last night, Mayor Waggoner was liking
comments on Facebook critical of those opposing this proposal. Does that mean he is in support of the plan?
If so,why has the community of Laurel not heard from him?What are his reasons?
I respectfully request a response addressi ng these concerns.
Thank you to r your time and attention.
I did not respond.
January 26,2026
Voicemail from Richard Swanson-Hello,Sarah,this Is Richard Swanson. I'm calling in regards to
your um,position on the council membership. It's in regards o the,uh,forensics mental hospital for
the state that coming in Newyork potentially is coming into,um,coming into Laurel. Um,been
visiting with a lot of people over in the um,quote unquote,uh,you know,golf course road area.Not
getting a lot of reception. Um,so I guess what I would wish that you would do is talk to your
constituents in your werd, uh,your ward one.Um, not exactly sure where world one lays in Laurel. I
haven't don't that research,just pulling up members.And,you know,spend a little time talking with
them in regards to whether or not they would like it.Um,from my understanding.The city has
annexing, um,to make.And if it doesn't get annexed,um,the facility will have to go to a community,
um,that has expressed an interest.For this facility.Anywey,food for thought,.Thank you very much
foryourtime and consideration. Bye.
I did not respond.
January 26,2026
I, along with City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A<wardl a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B
<wardl b@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@lauret.mt.gov>;Ward 2B<wsrd2b@IaureLmt.gov>;
Ward 3A<ward3a@laure1_mt.gcv>;Ward 36<ward3b@laure1_mt.gov>;Ward 4A
<ward4a@lauret.mt.gov>;Ward 4B ward41b@laureLmt.gcv, received another email from Samantha
Mayes
Good morning,
I am writing again to follow up on my previous email regarding the proposed facility in Laurel.To date,
I have received a response from a few of you,and for that I am very grateful.I knowyou are all just
doingyour best,but after more thinking aboulthis, I have some more questions.With such little
information we have, I urge the City Council to stop this facility from proceeding as soon as
possible.
As I outlined previously,after speaking with Lee Deming,and our County Commissioners,it appears
that no local representatives were consulted or gave approval for this plan.What role did Kurt
Merkeegsrd and Mayor Waggoner play in bringing this to Laurel?
There are also serious concerns about the proposed site itself.The location is in a residential area,
adjacent to a school,youth softball fields,a golf course,and a public library.It is also within a mile of
the CHS refinery.Given current land values,this raises legitimate questions about whether the state
may be overpaying for property that appears poorly suited for this purpose.
In addition,I am requesting clarification regardingthe site's proximity to nearby oil refineries or
related industrial facilities.Specifically,I would appreciate information on:
• Whether the proximity to schools,an oil refinery,and public facilities was considered during site
selection,and wilt be considered when it comes to annexation.
• Why did you not loop Rep.Deming into the decision-making process on this plan?Why not listen to
our County Commissioners?
• Do you have an evacuation plan in place If something were to happen at the refinery?How will you
safely remove 32 criminally insane people from the facility without posing a danger to the
community?Have you even spoken to CHS about this?
• Have you been in contact with our school board or superintendent about the placement so close to
the school?If not,why?Wouldn't protecting our Children be the primary question to be asked here?
• Whether any environmental,air quality,or health impact assessments have been conducted in
relation to this site. Have you studied water tables?Have you reviewed safety concerns related to the
proximity of the refinery?Have you done traffic studies?
• Have you done tax studies?Exactly how many dollars wig this pull from our already struggling
schools?What will happen to the real estate values in the ares?
• Have you done economic studies?What will this do to expansion in our city?We are limited
geographically on where we,as a town, can expand-residentially or commercially Have you
researched whether this will impact future expansion?
Most troubling is the apparent breakdown of the local governmental process.The majority of
residents oppose this plan,and our city does not have the tax base to absorb the infrastructure
demands this facility would create.Backdoor deals have been made without consult ngthe Laurel
community.We deserve answers.
I am again requesting clarification on the City's role in this decision,how Laurelwas selected over
other witting communities,and—most importantly—haw the voices of residents and elected officiels
are intended to be heard.The continued lack of response only reinforces the perception that this
process has excluded the community most directly affected.At this point, because of the lack of
information coming from the state and the city,but with the information I do have from the County,
can only see negatives to the placement of this facility and I urge you to oppose annexation.
I respectfully request a response add ressing these concerns.
Thank you for your time and attention.
I did not respond.
January 27,2026
I,along with Ward 1A<wardl a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 1 B<wardl b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2A
<ward239laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward21b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@1aureLmt.gov>;
Ward 3B<ward31b@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 4A<ward4a@laureLm1.9ov>;Ward 413
ward4b@taurel.mt.gov;Kurt MarKegard <kmarkegad@IaureLmt.gov>; City Mayor
citymayor@laurel.mt.gov received an email from Kris Vogele.
Dear Mayor and Members of the Laurel City Council,
My name is Kris Vogele,and I am a resident of Laurel living at 306 E 4th Street, Laurel,MT 590"
and I also own property in the downtown district. I am writing to formally oppose the anticipated
annexation and siting of a 32-bed forensic psychiatric facility on the approximately 114-acre
property near the City of Laurel.
Annexation is a discretionary decision of the City Council.The fact that the State may acquire or
control this property does not obligate the City to annex it,nor does it justify annexation of the entire
114-acre tract.Any annexation request should be evaluated on its merits and limited to the minimum
acreage necessary, if approved at alt.
A forensic psychiatric facility is a secure institutional use involving individuals in the criminal legal
system. Local police,fire,and emergency medical services are the first responders to incidents,
regardless of state ownership.Annexation woultl therefore impose increased public safety,
infrastructure,and fiscal burdens on the City without sufficient guarantees that the State will fully
and permanently coverthose costs.
This facility will place a significant long term burden on the current water and sewer system at local
taxpayer expense without reimbursement from the State of Montana and It's proposed location in
very close proximity to residential properties and the Laurel Primary Elementary school is of
significant concern. I am including an attachment regarding proximity to the school(less than 500
yds from property line to property line).
I am also disappointed to learn that Laurel City staff have been involved in talks with the state about
this facility documented as far back as August of 2025 per state records. That is at least six months
of time that we as a community could have come up with so much better options without operating
in a vacuum as has been the case.
The Letter from Mr MarKegard to Mr Villa at the State of Montana Board of Investments(November 17,
2025)was nothing less than an application for consideration regardless of how staff frame it. Given
the chronolgical timing of this letter, It begs the question if the slate did not initiate and call for the
letter. The Letter reads more like a document written up by a consultant or agent for a land search
piecing Mr. MarKegard and the city Ina precarious situation. It is upsetting that a taskforce of
community members were not assembled by the mayor to involve stakeholders from the community
in the process along with city council membere.
It is also incomprehensible that the City council was apparently kept In the dark about the city staff
intentions of making application through a letter versus making an outright application that may have
required city council approval through a prescribed process.
One of the Mayor's primary duties is to maintain safety for our community. The Montana State
Legislature feels so strongly about safety that private facilities holding incarcerated Individuals were
required per MCA to be located no cioserthan l mile from school property. The same philoscphyon
safety applies to any facility regardless of being public or private. The land the state wants to
purchase is less than 500 yard from the property line of the school. Pleaseseeattachments.
There are many questions that need to be answered as to how this process took place,what state
and local influences played apart in moving this forward without city council knowledge,and if there
have been any quid pro quo dealings in the process.
I respectfully request that the Mayof and City Council:
1. Stop aLLowingcity staff to act as a liaison for the State of Montana which places the City of Laurel Ina
precarious situation With potential liability. Staff, in particular the CAD,has made suggestions and
inferences that may not align with current zoning,gene fat safety,Intended use,emergency services,
and impacts on economic development and long term growth that actually benefit the state over the
negative impacts to the city. Does the city have fully vetted impact studies on the short and long
term costs to our city and infrastructure for the location Mr. Markeguard is recommending to the
state? Also,what are the benefits for Laurel? These are two pivotal questions that should have been
answered prior to!nvitingthe state to move into our community.
2. Deny any annexation petition related to this facility;or
3. At minimum,strictly limit annexation to the smallest feasible footprint lie;10 acres adjacent to the
highway to accomodate a facility approximately 1 acre in size)and exclude the remainder of the 114
acres;AND
4. Require binding,enforceable agreements ensuring the State bears 100%of ail incremental public
safety and infrastructure costs.
Thank you for your time and consideration,and for placing the safety,fiscal health,and long-term
interests of Laurel residents first.
Respectfully,
Kris Vogele
306 E 4th Street
Laurel,MT 59044
Attachments: BOI Notice,Map School Distance,Nov 17 letter to BOI,School Safety and proximityfor
annexation,draft psych facility,Reasons to oppose psychiatric facility on hwy 10 in Laurel.
My response:
Thank you for your outreach and for taking the time to share your perspective.As a City Council
Member,I value thoughtful public engagement and the role it plays In our civic process.
At this time,there is no format matter related to this issue pending before the City Council,and
therefore no action currently before me for consideration.That said, I will ensure your comments are
shared with the Mayor and appropriate City staff and included for review as part of the public record.
Please note that public comment is most impactful duringthe designated comment period once an
item is on the agenda.you are welcome and encouraged to participate and to attend all duly noticed
City Council meetings should you wish to speakwhen the matter is presented.
Thankyou again for your engagement and continued interest in the City's work.
Respectfully,
January 27,2026
I,along with City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward to<wardl a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1 B
<wardl b@IaumLmt.gov>;Ward 2A<ward2a@IaureLmt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward21b@1aurelmt-gov>;
Ward 3A<Werd3a@IaureLmt.9ov>;Ward 3B<ward31b@lauret.mt.gov>;Ward 4A
<ward4a@laureLmt.gov>;Ward 4B ward4b@laurel.mt.gov, received another email from Samantha
Mayes
Good Morning-
As I am sure you each know,the school board last night came out in opposition to the plot of land for
the proposed mental health prison,as did County Commissioner Mark Morse.I encourage each of
you to watch the video to hear the opposition from our elected school board members,the
commissioner,and the community.I understand it has to go to the planning board first, but since we
do not have public contact information for the planning board,I will urge each of you to oppose this
plan and vote against the placement of a prison within yards of an elementary school.
Thankyou,
Samantha Mayes
My response:
Thankyou for your outreach and for taking the time to share your perspective.As a City Council
Member,I value thoughtful public engagement and the role it plays in our civic process.
At this time,there is no formal matter related to this issue pending before the City Council,and
therefore no action currently before me for consideration.That said,I will ensure your comments are
shared with the Mayor and appropriate City staff and included for review as part of the public record.
Please note that public comment is most impactful duringthe designated comment period once an
item is on the agenda.You are welcome and encouraged to participate and to attend all duly noticed
City Council meetings should you wish to speak when the matter is presented.
Thankyou again for your engagement and continued interest in the City's work.
Respectfully,
January 27,2028
1 received a response email from Samantha Mayes.
I appreciate your reply.I understand that this is not officially on the agenda,but since it is going to the
planning board and this directly impacts myfamily and our community,I will not wait until it is on the
agenda to reach out and will continue reaching out.Thankyou for sharing my comments with the
Mayor,as he has yet to respond to any of my concerns or emails.
I did not respond.
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1A
Sent: Tuesday,January 27, 2026 2:55 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject FW: Letter of Concern of the Possible State Mental Facility in Laurel
Sara B. Naylor
CmiueANICIal -r Cm of I,like al \C and I
♦ JIMt i AltIO
From:The Front Porch <thefrontporchmt@gmall.com>
Sent: Wednesday,January 21,202612:18 PM
To: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B cwardlb@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 2A<warc12a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3B
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4B<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>;
Vince.Ricci@legmt.gov; Lee.Deming@legmt.gov;governor@mt.gov
Subject: Letter of Concern of the Possible State Mental Facility in Laurel
Dear City Council Members and State Representatives,
I am writing as a concerned,tax-paying community memberto strongly oppose the proposed annexation
and placement of a state mental health facility in the middle of our town, surrounded by homes, schools,
and other public buildings.
This proposal is neither safe nor a cost-effective decision for our community. Placing a large-scale
mental health facility in a densely populated residential area raises serious concerns about public
safety, emergency response capacity, and the overall well-being of nearby families and children.
Schools, neighborhoods, and public spaces should not be placed at risk due to poor site selection for a
facility of this nature.
Additionally,this project provides little to no financial benefit to our city. The facility will not generate
sufficient tax revenue to support or improve our local schools, roads,water systems, or other critical
infrastructure. At a time when our community is already struggling to maintain and upgrade essential
1
services, this proposal would place additional strain on local resources without providing meaningful
financial support in return.
Equally troubling is the lack of long-term resources and funding commitments from the State of Montana
to adequately sustain a facility of this scale.Without guaranteed staffing, funding, and ongoing
operational su pport,the burden will inevitably fall on the city--our emergency services, law
enforcement, healthcare providers, and taxpayers.
The lack of transparency from the state throughout this process raises even greater concern. Limited
communication, unanswered questions, and vague assurances do nothing to build public trust. Instead,
this absence of clear and open information creates the impression that critical details are being
withheld. When decisions of this magnitude are made without full transparency, it undermines
confidence and leaves community members feeling ignored and misled.
Furthermore, placing this facility in the heart of town will significantly impact current home and land
values. Many residents have invested their life savings into their properties, and this decision threatens
to devalue those investments and destabilize our community.
It is also important to note that other cities applied for this facility and have suitable land, appropriate
zoning, and the capacity to house it in locations that are not directly in the middle of residential
neighborhoods.Those Locations are far better suited for a facility of this nature and would not place it in
immediate proximity to homes, schools, and public spaces.
I strongly encourage the City Council and our State Representatives to Listen to us—the tax-paying
members of this community.We are the people who live here, raise our families here, and support this
city through our taxes and civic involvement.We do not want this mental health facility placed in our
community in this location.
For the safety,financial stability, and long-term well-being of our town, I urge you to not vote to annex
this property and to reject this proposal. Please act in the best interest of our community and pursue
alternative locations that are more appropriate and better equipped to support such a facility.
Thankyou foryour time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Hill
Concerned Community Member
2
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1A
Sent: Tuesday,January 27, 2026 2:55 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Forensic Psychiatric Facility
Attachments: 1000018959.jpg; 1000018970jpg;Annexation_Denial_Prison_School_Buffer_Montana-
260126_161820.pdf, Full_Dmft_With_Statutory_References(1)_260126_185708.pdh
Psychiatric Facility laurel_260126_185436.pdf;Screenshot 20260121 171931
Facebookjpg; Screenshot_20260121 171954_Facebookjpg
Sara B. Naylor
10 Cmnri Uunlxr l'm of L,mrtl tY'XnII
♦ Lb+A149UN
♦ U-.X.IingolXXcL,Xgu.
From: Kris Vogele<threepeat43@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 7:08 PM
To:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward lA<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3B
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4B<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Forensic Psychiatric Facility
Dear Mayor and Members of the Lau rel.City Council,
My name is Kris Vogele, and I am a resident of Laurel living at 306 E 4th Street, Laurel, MT 59044 and I
also own property in the downtown district. I am writing to formally oppose the anticipated annexation
and siting of a 32-bed forensic psychiatric facility on the approximately 114-acre property near the
City of Laurel.
Annexation is a discretionary decision of the City Council.The fact that the State may acquire or control
this property does not obligate the City to annex it, nor does it justify annexation of thee ntire 114-acre
tract. Any annexation request should be evaluated on its merits and Limited to the minimum acreage
necessary, if approved at all.
Aforensic psychiatric facility is a secure institutional use involving individuals in the criminal legal
system. Local police,fire, and emergency medical services are the first responders to incidents,
J
regardless of state ownership.Annexation would therefore impose increased public safety,
infrastructure, and fiscal burdens on the City without sufficient guarantees that the State will fully and
permanently coverthose costs.
This facilitywill place a significant longterm burden on the current water and sewer system at local
taxpayer expense without reimbursement from the State of Montana and it's proposed location in very
close proximity to residential properties and the Laurel Primary Elementary school is of significant
concern. I am including an attachment regarding proximity to the school(less than 500 yds from
property line to property line).
I am also disappointed to learn that Laurel City staff have been involved in talks with the state about this
facility documented as far back as August of 2025 per state records. That is at least six months of time
that we as a community could have come up with so much better options without operating in a vacuum
as has been the case.
The Letter from Mr Markegard to Mr Villa at the State of Montana Board of Investments (November 17,
2025)was nothing less than an application for consideration regardless of how staff frame it. Given the
chronolgical timing of this letter, it begs the question if the state did not initiate and call for the
letter. The Letter reads more like a document written u p by a consultant or agent for a land search
placing Mr. Markegard and the city in a precarious situation. It is upsetting that a task force of
community members were not assembled by the mayor to involve stakeholders from the community in
the process along with city council members.
It is also incomprehensible that the city council was apparently kept in the dark about the city staff
intentions of making application through a letter versus making an outright application that may have
required city council approval through a prescribed process.
One of the Mayor's primary duties is to maintain safety for our community. The Montana State
Legislature feels so strongly about safety that private facilities holding incarcerated individuals were
required per MCA to be located no closer than l mile from school property. The same philosophy on
safety applies to any facility regardless of being public or private. The land the state wants to purchase is
less than 500 yard from the property line of the school. Please see attachments.
There are many questions that need to be answered as to how this process took place, what state and
local influences played a part in moving this forward without city council knowledge, and if there have
been any quid pro quo dealings in the process.
I respectfully request that the Mayor and City Council:
1. Stop allowing city staff to act as a liaison for the State of Montana which places the City of
Laurel in a precarious situation with potential liability. Staff, in particularthe CAD, has made
suggestions and inferences that may not align with current zoning, general safety, intended use,
emergency services, and impacts on economic development and longterm growth that actually
benefit the state over the negative impacts to the city. Does the city have fullyvetted impact
studies on the short and longterm costs to our city and infrastructure for the Location Mr.
Markeguard is recommending to the state? Also, what are the benefits for Laurel? These are
two pivotal questions that should have been answered prior to inviting the state to move into
our community.
2
2. Deny any annexation petition related to this facility; or
3. At minimum, strictly limit annexation to the smallest feasible footprint(!a; 10 acres adjacent
to the highway to accomodate a facility approximately 1 acre in size) and exclude the remainder
of the l l4 acres; AND
4. Require binding, enforceable agreements ensuring the State bears 100%of all incremental
public safety and infrastructure costs.
Thankyou foryourtime and consideration, and for placing the safety,fiscal health, and long-term
interests of Laurel residents first.
Respectfully,
Kris Vogele
306 E 4th Street
Laurel, MT 59044
Attachments: BOI Notice, Map School Distance, Nov 17 letter to BOI, SchooL Safety and proximity for
annexation, draft psych facility, Reasons to oppose psychiatric facility on hwy 10 in Laurel.
3
LEGAL BASIS FOR ANNEXATION DENIAL BASED ON STATEWIDE
POLICY REGARDING PRISON SITING NEAR SCHOOLS
I. Statewide Public Policy Disfavors Prison Siting Near Schools
Montana law expressly requires that private correctional facilities be located no less than one
mile from any school. While this statute applies by its terms to private prisons, it reflects a
clear and deliberate statewide public policy determination: correctional facilities are
incompatible land uses in close proximity to schools and children.
The Legislature's adoption of a fixed, objective buffer demonstrates that proximity between
incarceration facilities and schools presents unacceptable land-use, safety, and planning
conflicts, regardless of whether a specific incident has occurred. The statute embodies a
precautionary principle, recognizing that the severity of potential harm—not merely the
likelihood—justifies spatial separation.
Local governments are entitled, and in fact obligated,to give weight to this expressed policy
when making discretionary land-use decisions, including annexation.
It.Annexation Must Be Evaluated In Light of State Policy, Not in Isolation
Annexation under Montana law is not automatic, even when requested by a governmental
entity. A municipality must determine whether annexation is reasonable and necessary,
consistent with the local growth policy, compatible with surrounding land uses, and in the
public interest.
In making that determination. the City may—and should—consider statewide land-use
policies adopted by the Legislature. The one-mile prison-school buffer statute constitutes
persuasive evidence that Montana disfavors prison siting near educational facilities as a
matter of public policy. Approving annexation for the express purpose of facilitating a prison
within close proximity to Laurel Elementary School would place the City in direct tension with
that policy.
III. The Legislature's Policy Applies by Analogy to State-Run Facilities
Although the statute expressly governs private prisons, its underlying rationale is not
ownership�clependenl. The concerns motivating the Legislature—child safety, land-use
incompatibility, emergency response risk, and irreversible community impacts—exist
regardless of whether a prison is privately or publicly operated.
Nothing in Montana law suggests that the presence of incarcerated populations, secure
transport, perimeter security, or emergency response activity becomes benign merely
because the operator is the State rather than a contractor. The Legislature's decision to
impose a bright-line distance requirement reflects a judgment that schools are uniquely
sensitive land uses warranting protection from proximity to correctional facilities of any kind.
IV. Annexation to Enable a Disfavored Use Is Arbitrary and Capricious
Annexation is a discretionary governmental act. When annexation is sought solely to enable a
land use that is disfavored under statewide policy, approval becomes legally vulnerable.
Here, annexation would enable a correctional facility in close proximity to an elementary
school, contradict a clearly articulated legislative policy favoring separation, undermine
land-use compatibility principles reflected in both state law and local planning, and expose the
City to claims of arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
Where the Legislature has already determined that a one-mile buffer is appropriate to protect
schools, approving annexation to defeat that policy in practice would be unreasonable and
inconsistent with sound planning.
V. Growth Policy Consistency and Community Character
Montana growth policies emphasize protection of established residential neighborhoods,
compatibility of adjacent land uses, public safety and quality of life, and predictable, orderly
development.
A prison sited near Laurel Elementary School conflicts with these objectives. The statewide
prison-school buffer statute reinforces that educational environments are incompatible with
correctional uses, and that such incompatibility is recognized at the highest level of state
policymaking. Annexation that facilitates this conflict cannot be found consistent with the
growth policy, nor with the intent of Montana land-use law.
VI. Proper Remedy: Denial or Limitation of Annexation
Given the Legislature's expressed policy, the City has a legally defensible basis to deny
annexation outright, limit annexation to exclude areas whose inclusion would enable a prison
proximate to a school, or postpone annexation pending alternative siting that respects
statewide policy.
Failure to do so would elevate administrative convenience over legislative judgment and
community protection.
VII. Conclusion
Montana law does not treat prison siting near schools as a neutral planning choice. By
enacting a one-mile separation requirement, the Legislature has declared that schools
warrant heightened protection from proximity to correctional facilities.
That policy must inform annexation decisions.Annexation sought to facilitate a prison near
Laurel Elementary School is therefore contrary to statewide public policy, inconsistent with
growth planning principles, and an improper exemise of municipal discretion.
Reasons the State of Montana should not build a 32-bed
forensic psychiatric unit in Laurel, Montana
Purpose. This document outlines public-safety, financial, governance, and land-use concerns
associated with the State of Montana's planned 32-bed forensic mental health facility near
Laurel, and proposes lawful, process-based methods residents and local officials can use to
oppose annexation and siting.
Note: This is general information and advocacy drafting—not legal advice. If you want to pursue
a formal challenge (annexation/zoning/permits), you'll likely want a Montana municipal/land-
use attorney.
1) Background and current status
• Montana DPHHS has proposed constructing and operating a 32-bed forensic mental
health facility, and the State selected Laurel as the location.
• Reporting indicates the State purchased(or is pursuing)a roughly 114-acre site in west
Laurel for the facility, and the City expects an annexation application and says it must
hold public hearings and accept public comment.
• State planning materials acknowledge the$26.5 million legislative allocation may be
insufficient for a"hardened"forensic facility, implying potential future cost escalation or
additional funding requests.
2) Public safety and community risk concerns
A forensic psychiatric facility is not a typical treatment clinic. It is designed for people involved
in the criminal legal system who are detained for competency evaluation/treatment, and it
requires secure operations, staffing, and transport.
A. Increased demands on local law enforcement and emergency services
• A secure forensic facility requires frequent coordination with law enforcement for
transports, perimeter incidents, mutual aid, and emergency response planning. Local
agencies may face higher call volumes, training requirements, and specialized incident
response needsoften without guaranteed, long-term reimbursement arrangements.
• Even if the facility is "state-run," the immediate first responders in a crisis are local.
B. Operational risks: staffing shortages, turnover, and security failures
• Secure behavioral health facilities are highly sensitive to staffing levels and training.
Understaffing increases risks of assaults, contraband, elopement attempts, and lockdown
events.
• Montana's existing state psychiatric system has faced repeated public concerns about
staffing, leadership turnover, and safety conditions(see Warm Springs section below),
raising credible doubts about whether a new facility can be operated safely and
consistently over time.
C. Site-specific community impacts
Common local safety issues that should be addressed before siting:
• Proximity to neighborhoods, schools, parks, and commercial corridors
• Traffic patterns(secure transports and staff commutes)
• Perimeter security design and lighting
• Mutual-aid agreements and who pays for training/equipment
• Emergency planning: lockdowns, missing-person protocols, evacuation and shelter-in-
place coordination
Key point: If the State cannot demonstrate a fully funded, enforceable plan for staffing, security,
and emergency coordination, the project poses avoidable risk to Laurel residents.
3) Financial impacts on Laurel and the surrounding
community
A. Cost shifting to local taxpayers
Even when the State builds the facility, annexation and development typically create ongoing
local costs:
• Road impacts, intersection upgrades, snow removal, traffic enfomemem
• Increased police/fire/EMS readiness and training
• Utility capacity planning(water/sewer), stormwater, and maintenance
DPHHS planning documents explicitly state that BOI/DPHHS will pursue "permits,
annexations,zoning,and other local approvals." That is the stage where Laurel can demand
binding commitments and cost coverage.
B. Property value and insurance-market concerns
For some buyers and insurers,proximity to a secure forensic facility can be perceived as a
negative externality, potentially affecting:
• Residential desirability and property values (especially nearest the facility)
• Insurance underwriting perceptions
• Commercial development patterns
C. Long-term uncertainty and budget escalation
The State's own plan signals possible cost overruns (the"S26.5 million may be insufficient"
language), which can lead to:
• Phased construction pressure
• Later requests for additional appropriations
• "Temporary"operational compromises becoming permanent (e.g., staffing models, bed
use, security hardening)
4) Poor stewardship concerns: Track record of state
behavioral health management
Opposition to a new facility is strengthened when tied to the State's demonstrated ability(or
inability)to safely operate comparable institutions.
A. Problems associated with Warm Springs (Montana State Hospital) and
oversight alarms
Recent reporting and public oversight have described serious, recurring problems at Montana
State Hospital in Warm Springs—particularly around staffing instability, leadership disruption,
and safety/care concerns.
Additionally,Montana's Board of Visitors produces formal inspection reports for state facilities
(including forensic components), showing ongoing oversight concerns that should be weighed
before expanding the State's institutional footprint into a new host community.
Argument frame:If the State has struggled to safely and effectively run the existing system,
Laurel should not be asked to absorb the operational risk of a new secure forensic instimiton—
especially without enforceable guarantees, transparent performance metrics, and independent
oversight conditions.
B. Accountability and transparency deficits
Key stewardship questions Laurel should demand answers to before any annexation/zoning
approval:
• Staffing ratios,recruitment plans, and contingency staffing
• Incident reporting commitments and public transparency
• Independent oversight, auditability, and corrective action timelines
• Clear boundaries preventing mission creep (e.g., expansion beyond 32 beds, civil-bed
"temporary" conversions)
5) Land-use, annexation, and lawful methods to block or
slow annexation into the City of Laurel
First principle: Annexation is a local approval choke point
DPHHSBOI documents anticipate local annexation and zoning approvals.
Local residents and officials can lawfully use procedural and substantive standards to oppose
annexation or impose strict conditions.
A. Understand which annexation pathway is being used (and use its
requirements)
Montana law provides multiple annexation methods. Two common frameworks relevant here:
1. Annexation by petition(Title 7,Ch.2,Part 46).
A petition with certain signature thresholds can trigger either an election or council
action:
• Petition signed by>_33 1/3% of registered electors in the area generally requires
submission to electors (with exceptions).
• If signed by>50% of resident electors owning real property or owners representing>_
50% of total area, the governing body may approve or disapprove the petition on its
merits.
2. Annexation with provision of services (Title 7, Ch.2,Part 47).
A petition may require signatures of 51% of real property owners in the area sought to
be annexed, after which the municipality follows the statutory procedure.
Practical blocking strategy:
If the State needs a petition pathway, organic affected landowners/resident freeholders to refuse
signatures and document opposition early.
B. Use public hearings and the record: build an administrative file
Local reporting indicates Laurel expects annexation filings and confirms the City Council must
hear public comment.
Action steps:
• Submit written comments with specific concerns(safety, cost shifting, stewardship,
zoning incompatibility)
• Request the City require: traffic study, utility capacity study, public safety impact plan,
and a fiscal impact report
• Demand all conditions be memorialized in enforceable agreements (development
agreement/annexation conditions/ service plan)
C. Zoning and land-use tools
Even if annexation is pursued, zoning and conditional approvals can be decisive:
• Argue the proposed zoning is incompatible with surrounding uses
• Insist on strict conditional-use standards(hours, security perimeter, lighting, access
control, emergency response commitments)
• Push for buffering requirements, setbacks, and design standards that may make the site
infeasible or require substantial redesign
D. Service-plan and cost-allocation leverage
Montana planning materials and model annexation guidance emphasize that annexation generally
involves specifying services(water/sewer/roads, etc.) and how they are funded.
Negotiation position for Laurel:
• No annexation without a binding plan that the State pays 100% of incremental
infrastructure and public safety costs
• Require reimbursement mechanisms and periodic true-ups
• Require mutual aid and emergency response training funding
E. County jurisdiction and "stay out of city limits" options
If the project site is currently outside city limits,one approach is to:
• Press the City to deny annexation and keep the facility in county jurisdiction (where
applicable)
• Work with Yellowstone County officials on land-use controls, access permits, and
service extensions that may be necessary for development (depending on utilities/roads)
F. Political and legislative options (non-annexation)
• Petition local electeds for resolutions opposing the site
• Request state legislators pursue budget conditions, reporting requirements, or siting
alternatives
• Demand independent oversight and performance triggers(e.g., operations paused if
safety metrics breached)
6) Recommended talking points (ready-to-use)
1. Public safety: Laurel should not accept elevated risk without enforceable
staffing/security/incident-reporting standards and fully funded emergency response
coordination.
2. Cost shifting: The State must not externalize policing, EMS readiness, road impacts, and
utility capacity costs onto local taxpayers.
3. stewardship: The State's documented struggles operating Warm Springs undermine
confidence in safe long-term operations of a new secure facility.
4. Process: Annexation and zoning are discretionary local actions;Laurel can require
studies, conditions, and agreements—or deny approvals where standards are not met.
5. Better alternatives: Site the facility in a location that is already appropriate for high-
security institutional use, with existing infrastructure and distance buffers, and proven
operational oversight.
7) Attachments you may want to include (if you're
submitting a packet)
• Timeline of key state actions and public statements (purchaseBOUDPHHS milestones)
• News coverage summary showing pending annexation process and public hearings
• Warm Springs accountability and safety concern summaries from reputable reporting
• Statutory excerpts showing annexation thresholds and discretionary approval
Reasons the State of Montana Should Not Build a
32-Bed Forensic Psychiatric Facility in Laurel,
Montana
This document outlines public safety, fiscal, land-use, and governance concerns regarding the
proposed forensic psychiatric facility.
Public Safety Concerns
Forensic psychiatric facilities serve justice-involved individuals and require heightened
security. Local police, fin:, and emergency medical services are the first responders to
incidents, despite having no control over facility operations.
Relevant law: MCA§ 7-1-111 (municipal police powers to protect public health and safely).
Financial Impacts on the Community
Annexation creates long-term service and infrastructure obligations and exposes Laurel to
financial risk.
Relevant law: MCA § 7-2-460"635 (annexation statutes); MCA § 7-6-4001 (municipal fiscal
responsibility).
Poor State Stewardship
Montana has experienced chronic staffing, safety, and compliance issues at existing
psychiatric facilities.
Relevant authority: Legislative audit and oversight under MCA § 5-13-201.
Problems at Montana State Hospital — Warm Springs
The Montana State Hospital at Warm Springs has been subject to repeated oversight, staffing
shortages, and safety concerns documented in public reports.
Annexation Authority and Limiting the 114-Acre Parcel
Annexation is discretionary. The City may deny annexation or limit it to the minimum footprint
required.
Relevant law: MCA § 7-2-4601-4635; MCA§ 76-1-601 (growth policy consistency).
Public Methods to Oppose Annexation
Citizens may submit comments,testify at hearings, and request analyses under Montana
open meeting laws.
Relevant law: MCA§ 2-3-203 (public participation).
Conclusion
The proposed facility should not be sited in Laurel. At minimum, annexation should be denied
or strictly limited.
MONTANA
BOARD OF INVESTMENTS
Statement of Board of Investments
Executive Director Dan Villa
August 20, 2025, Meeting
I received a call Monday from the Executive that, in my opinion, necessitates a pause by the
Board. The Executive and Legislative branches currently hold differing interpretations of the
Board's authority under Section 17 of House Bill 5 relating to the construction of a Behavioral
Health Facility. in respect of both branches, in compliance with the Act, and to avoid acting without
clear direction, I recommend the Board suspend any further consideration and forgo further
implementation of House Bill 5 until we receive written guidance specifying services to be
provided at the facility, the general location desired for the facility, and confirmation that the facility
is to be built as an investment security held in trust for the State. The Board must avoid being
placed between coequal branches to which we owe legal and fiduciary duties.
I thank local leaders of Billings and Laurel for their candid input, especially Councilmen
Aspenlieder and Kennedy, Billings City Administrator Chits Kukulski, Laurel City Administrator
Kurt Markegard, Director Brereton and staff at DPHHS, Budget Director Osmundson and staff at
OBPP, as well as Senators Esp, Yakawich, Lenz, Ricci, and Representatives Etchart, Brewster
and Schomer. Their efforts reflect a shared commitment to expanding behavioral health service
capacity while protecting community safety and interests.
If due diligence resumes upon receipt of written guidance, no previously reviewed sites—including
those on Skyway Drive—are viable, given local feedback, infrastructure costs, local zoning
regulations, impacts on targeted economic development districts, and state land leasing
processes. If B01 is to engage further, our future work must begin with clarity on services and
siting from our partners, while still meeting our obligations to secure prorits and cost savings for
Montanans."
i
� " —BL•AIN;
'N NA
-1 MAE ~
(RILE)
r . ti KAISER,
•: ), MAURICE R
& SUSAN J SCHOO
PONES, Will
i� MIKE &JULIE f -
a 1 i
C <.w�� . � 1� •1
14
lot
5 )l 4 -
(
r v • •� .y ¢> .R .rfa
v
Lf
HARRINGTON,
MARK &
BARBARA KENNEY, STO
f LEONARD EA J DEN
SHAROLYN A
M ♦ I TAM
MAI
r * 2D
HALL
mis 1"IT Y Citv Of Laurel
I
no'n MnnkS,L4I'u•, 1.
WA7ta OFC 62&7q P.(l. Boa 10
(ilia l 62a txs/
t Ua.Lr61 1 aura I, Nnnun. +'also
t Ar
(fir of Me CAO
November 17. 2025
%it, nan Pills
Executive lhrector
li sand of Investments
1 would like to explain why the (airy of Laurel did not nominate itself Ibr the potential location
for a new fmrnsic dental Health Facility the State of Montana intends to build" Inside the city
of 1 aural limit► there is no location that would be suitable fur the facility oaf so therefore 1
cannot ask the Lawef umnWed to consider applym
wrier+ Mayor W%id %%Faggotter and 1 have described to you a location jDdv%vTm
Laurel's city
limits that has must of the criteria thm would make huddling the facility rnsuuxufuL
The land has adjacent water and +ewer lines that arc currently being irrctafa alw has
natural gas, an eluctncal power line, cable tv, fife hydrants and 1 believe fnes Fhese
accetvey elenttrtta ate crucial in providing all the nerds a mend health felopneniwould need. Phis location wuudd lower the initial cost to construct such a rsus Iarrfsctute to build out such A faciltv
As 1 stata this location is just outside the city hrtuts and darmfure muss µv through the teaal
process to be considered for any city smicei the City Council pasud an anocwuun resolution
in 2tMtft that set the txitena fior rccavinµ city services To annex any propcny the City relics at
Mumaoa Corte Arenturd Title 7, (-hap" 2, pan 42 through 47. If the City of Laurel were ro
consider any type of Arutcxation from parts 42 through 47, we would teal to follow thou
hlontans laws, and this Includes the right for public participation and public hearing. Llte to the
requirements in City Council resolutum R08--22. land twtsidc city limits must be annexed to
receive city services and this is why Laurci could not apply during the racer rwmcu for
consideration for the state'+ facility.
The process city staff has always followed with repots to atncxation is a pre-applicninn
meeting with Owner or potential Owners Of land to be considered for annexation. rhis meeting
will discuss all the necessary steps Latael will rcgLdFc aid annexation requiremrnts is !Uomarra
Code 4nnouned (MCA> PLC A 7.244 is the pvocass rot nuexation orconugttous government
land if the state would like to consider the location just outside city limits. In the par buy null
agreements could be made until the public process has taken place and A favvrahle vote for
anncxmion is complete by IAurcf's City Council.
If the Statc is cmmdrrinV anv Cite ftx the location of the fumnsic lltcmtal ticalth fallity, l wt.uld
hope that thi►ae cities follow their ordinamc% and rtsofutions as I Fu%c ad%i--� .►ur etei-tcd
Officials on fulkming t_uam•I's ordinances and rcu' Autions
1be nght to have the public speak on the benefits or com ms thv- may hw%c abntt am
annexation or pms-ismon of kval %mimes is well &x:wnentcd in t-surel. l upplaud the efforts to
get community imvohvernent in chmsing the location tin t.hc f"ility, but I heluse the proven did
trat alklm, the location I Minted out to <vu during the summer tour to be twMitutod.
If anyone from the State would like to Wak to t aurcl'. SUPt of city staff. I un sure thin %%c
could arrange a ameting to&mum this Iettrr in nx1rc &Lul or what poltctes wv hAve fat the
I aurvi cornmun4-
Sincerely
Kurt . d.
Chief Admintomive CO att
City of t cruel
Cc. h1aytiar Ian id 1k agpm
Kelly Strecker
From: Ward 2B
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2026 8:17 PM
To: Kelly Strecker
Subject: FW: Letter of Concern of the Possible State Mental Facility in Laurel
Heythere.
Good evening.
Here is another communication.
Thank you,
Brent
From:The Front Porch<thefrontporchmt@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday,January 21,202612:19 PM
To:City Mayor<citymayor@laureLmt.gov>; Ward SA<wardla@laureLrnt.gov>;Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3B
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4B<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>;
Vince.RTccl@legmt.gov; Lee.Deming@legmt.gov;governor@mt.gov
Subject:Letter of Concern of the Possible State Mental Facility in Laurel
Dear City Council Members and State Representatives,
I am writing as a concerned,tax-paying community memberto strongly oppose the proposed annexation
and placement of a state mental health facility in the middle of ourtown, surrounded by homes, schools,
and other public buildings.
This proposal is neither a safe nor a cost-effective decision for our community. Placing a large-scale
mental health facility in a densely populated residential area raises serious concerns about public
safety,emergency response capacity, and the overall well-being of nearbyfamilies and children.
Schools, neighborhoods, and public spaces should not be placed at risk due to poor site selection for a
facility of this nature.
Additionally,this project provides little to no financial benefit to our city. The facility will not generate
sufficient tax revenue to support or improve our local schools, roads,water systems, or other critical
infrastructure.At a time when our community is already struggling to maintain and upgrade essential
services,this proposal would place additional strain on local resources without providing meaningful
financial support in return.
Equally troubling is the lack of long-term resources and funding commitments from the State of Montana
to adequately sustain a facility of this scale. Without guaranteed staffing, funding, and ongoing
operational support,the burden will inevitably fall on the city—our emergency services, law
enforcement, healthcare providers, and taxpayers.
i
The lack of transparency from the state throughout this process raises even greater concern. Limited
communication, unanswered questions, and vague assurances do nothing to build public trust. Instead,
this absence of clear and open information creates the impression that critical details are being
withheld.When decisions of this magnitude are made without fulltransparency, it undermines
confidence and leaves community members feeling ignored and misled.
Furthermore, placing this facility in the heart of town will significantly impact current home and land
values. Many residents have invested their life savings into their properties, and this decision threatens
to devalue those investments and destabilize our community.
It is also important to note that other cities applied forth is facility and have suitable land, appropriate
zoning, and the capacity to house it in locations that are not directly in the middle of residential
neighborhoods.Those Locations are far better suited for a facility of this nature and would not place it in
immediate proximity to homes, schools, and public spaces.
I strongly encourage the City Council and our State Representatives to listen to us—the tax-paying
members of this community.We are the people who live here, raise our families here, and support this
city through our taxes and civic involvement.We do not want this mental health facility placed in our
community in this location.
For the safety,financial stability, and long-term well-being of our town, I urge you to not vote to annex
this property and to reject this proposal. Please act in the best interest of our community and pursue
alternative locations that are more appropriate and better equipped to support such a facility.
Thankyou for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Hill
Concerned Community Member
z
Brittney Harakal
From: Morris Rae Adickes<monnarae@cbthebrokers.com>
Sent:Tuesday,January 27, 2026 2:24 PM
To: Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Planning Board
Hi Tom,
I am sorry you have been thrown to the wolves your first year in office.
Please note, I agree with our Governor that a mental hospital is needed on the eastern half of Montana.
t
BUT not at the site that has been selected.This is site is surrounded by homes,one of them is my son lay
Dempster's home.
This site is less than 500 yards from West/Laurel Elementary,and even closerto the softballfields use bythe
youth of Laurel.
This facility should be located on land in an industrial park,or near ourtwo hospitals in Billings.
I sell real estate, our home values will drop. Look at Warm Springs,no one wants to live there...why??
The workers will commute from Billings.What value does this bring to Laurel, NONE!
Our roads,water and sewer are already failing.
The City is hop scotching in their annexation process.
Please VOTE NO to the annexation of the annexation of this 114 acre parcel.
Thank you for listening.
MONNA RAE ADICKES
Rea/ Errata Beaker
® 406-860.42a4
r®r�� monnerae@cb[bebrokers.com
py 3135 Meadow View Drive
^� �p Billin95, MT 59102
veRwww.mra406.eom
®COL-DWELL BANKER'l THE BROKERS
2