HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments through 2.17.2026 Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 4A
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 6:52 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Forensic Health Facility
From:John Esp<johnespforsenate@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 15, 2026 10:57 PM
To: Brian Lubinski<brian.lubinski@gmail.com>
Cc:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Civil Attorney<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 1A
<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 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4B
<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: Forensic Health Facility
Thanks Brian for your civil approach to dialogue on this issue.
I would take exception to the statement that Mr.Markegard and the Mayor made "this huge
decision". The Legislature, in conjunction with the Department made the decision in April to
look first to Yellowstone County for all the obvious reasons already stated on the public
record. One of the major considerations of site selection was to find a location with easy on
and off access to the Interstate Highway, and further, to find a site with the potential of
getting public utilities on site. If you look at it through that lens, It's a pretty narrow field of
possibilities.
I've told several people that have written to me and have made allegations to me that the
Mayor and Mr. Markegard are CORRUPT this: I would be very careful here. If you are in
actual possession of any evidence to support those statements, you should turn it over to the
County Attorney for investigation. Strong statements like this have in the past led to slander
and libel lawsuits being filed. As an aside, Mason's Rules of Legislative Proceedure ,
and Robert's Rules of Order both mandate that all remarks in public comment be polite,
courteous, and focussed on the issues, not personalities. Personal attacks are not allowed in
public comment. The Presiding officer may rule comments out of order if they are
disrespectful, irrelevant, or constitute personal attacks.
As I've said before, I'm happy to answer any questions that I can, John Esp
On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 6:33 PM Brian Lubinski <brn.lubinski@gmai1.com>wrote:
I do appreciate the responses and short of long form arguments via email with just us, I will leave it at
this.Through FOIA requests we have found Mr. Markegard and the mayor both did not include the
residents in this huge decision which has left a very bad taste and severe lack of trust about anything
moving forward.We as the community will make sure they are held accountable for their actions. We
also understand there is a need of a facility but not in the location selected.There are plenty of other
locations that would work for this facility that do not compromise both the safety of our children and
growth of our community. I hope that you will respect our opinion and decision as a community on this
matter as no amount of promises would change our mind on the location. There are a few letters
1
coming in this week that I would love for you to hear as they continue on my concerns and show other
concerns that I did not cover.
Sincerely
Brian
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2026, at 1:18 AM, John Esp <johnesg QEsan @gLn R.cor�r >wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:33 PM John Esp <johnespforsenate@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Brian, I'll start with your last email first and answer it this way. It has been a couple of
years since I drove by West Elementary, but if line of sight from the school to the Facility
truly is your issue then I would offer this... If from the school grounds you have a clear
line of sight to the Storage units at 1548 Old Highway 10 then you may have a point. But if
you can not see the storage units,you will not be able to see the State's facility which
will be directly across and adjacent to Highway 10. It will be even less visible after the
Landscaping is in. So I'll now go up to your first email and work through that one. John Esp
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 1:37 PM Brian Lubinski <brian.tubinski@gmail.com>wrote:
No problem, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I did google distances from the
women's prison off of 27th st. Before we get too far along in this, my main point in this is
there are city blocks separating the school and the prison, not just farm land or soon to
be other government structures. While MT cadastral is a good starting point, it does
tend to inflate values. Many times in my lending career I saw that value above and
beyond the actual purchase price. Homes for sale right now on the south side are going
from 150-250k with some outliers. Many of these are multi-family homes as well. I think
a realtor in our area would be a good point of reference for this as they would know more
than both of us.
My overall point to this was direct line of sight.We are not opposed to the facility and
what it stands for,we are opposed to the location.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2026, at 1:15 PM,John Esp <johRes orsen_ate@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Brian, I'm about to leave Big Timber for an afternoon and evening
constituent event in Livingston. I will try to get back to you this evening...
late. I will point out that the distances cited in my memo were from the
Yellowstone County Detention Center(jail) not the Women's prison. And if
you look on MT Cadastral there are many homes that appraise from
$250,000-$400,000 which I was informed is right at the median price
2
point for Billings homes.The two schools I was referring to are at 4188
King Avenue East and 3700 Madison Avenue respectively, both owned by
School District 2. More to follow.Thanks for your reasonable response,
John Esp
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 8:15 AM Brian Lubinski
<brian.lubinski a mail.corn>wrote:
I apologize as I was incorrect about the closest school. There is Orchard
Elementary school just over a mile out. My argument in this stays the
same as there are many city blocks to get there and not open field.
In addition I will also mention that the women's prison is on the south
side of Billings which is well known for lower income homes and crime
and the current location is in a higher affluent part of Laurel. I can't speak
for certain but I have no doubt this would cause a great impact to the
value of these homes.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2026, at 11:32 PM, Brian Lubinski
< n n.lubinski@gmail.cQm>wrote:
Brian, My responses will be in Bold Red Print
Hello Mr. Esp,
I'm writing in regards to your email to our officials as it
seems you may have been asked by someone to write in.
wrote this because I have watched the Council
meetings and workshops with interest in the last
several months and was impressed by the work they
were doing. I was somewhat confused by the
assumptions and in some cases misinformation that
was voiced in Public Comment at those meetings. So I
and I alone decided that it was time for me to share my
opinion on the public record. As a lifelong Montana
resident that has lived in both the Missoula area and now
Laurel for the last 19 years I can say I love living where I
do. We have an amazing community and many people that
will jump at a moments notice to help anyone in
need. That being said, I have some notes to add to the
email you sent that contain some facts instead of
emotions so that we can have an accurate discussion
based around that instead of how either of us may"feel"
about the proposed facility.
First and foremost, because of the freedom of information
act we as a community were able to find out that our mayor
and an unelected official appointed by the mayor had
3
made the decision to reach out to the state's BOI about
bringing the facility here without the city
council's knowledge or the knowledge of our community
members. We have uncovered many lies by these two
which are entered into past meetings records. I
understand this doesn't reflect directly upon you, however,
is pertinent information at hand and why the community is
very upset. The unelected official, Mr. Markegard, hid the
fact that he courted the BOI to Laurel without the
community's approval or even an opportunity to weigh in
on this. I am not going to comment on this except to say
that even though a delegation first met with
Yellowstone County and Billings and Laurel City leaders
on July 28th to get preliminary thoughts on possible
locations from interested parties, and we did look at
many,the Department of Health didn't settle on the
priority type of Facility that they had the greatest need
for until October 6th.
Contrary to your email or what you have heard, our
community is not opposed to this facility itself,just the
location of it. I would guide you to all of the emails sent in
by our community that are in the records of the past 3
meetings to see that many have said this. Two other cities
had put in to have this facility in their town, both in Eastern
Montana, and both with support willingly from many in
their own communities.True but this again Brian is my
opinion, but I don't believe those two communities have
what Laurel and Billings have to attract and retain
workforce and to provide workforce housing for
decades into the future.They don't have the same level
of economic opportunity and the choices in available
housing.You really do have attributes that make
Yellowstone County the number one choice.There is
also state owned land in another part of Laurel that does
not impede the growth of our town and is not anywhere
near any of the schools.The group did look at that parcel
but the expense of delivering basic utilities and the
timeline of Environmental Assessments made that
choice untenable.Again, Mr Markegard has hidden critical
information from the community when he took it upon
himself to find land for the BOI without any approvals from
the community. I would beg to differ with you on this
point.The BOI would have found those pieces of ground
in any case.They found several potential locations for
another project in another Montana town, and settled
4
on the location that worked out most favorably.They
develope, maintain well, and add value to every project
I am aware of.
To your responses in your email, I believe you weren't given
the real questions we are asking of the BOI, our state
representatives or the Mayor and Mr Markegard. I have
said before, I can have opinions,they, especially the
Council and Mayor can not.They have to wait for an
actual proposal to be submitted either to them or to a
susidiary Board. I know it's hard for them to wait,
especially in light of some of the comments, but that's
how the process works. I think they are to be
commended. I again would guide you to please look at the
emails from our community in the recordsYm trying to
keep up, but you guys are wearing me down...
The BOI and the state itself are not being transparent.
To be clear, the Legislature and Executive branch
has given the task of building this facility to the BOI.
The Department still has some responsibility to
provide advice to the BOI on the actual building
design, and the requirements for the safety of
people, both inside and outside of the facility. The
land will be owned and managed by the BOI for the
benefit of State taxpayers.
Some of you, as community leaders, have been part
of preliminary plat reviews, and other actions
reviewing subdivisions, and/or variance requests
from your citizens. Maybe some of you haven't yet.
Those that have dealt with applications or requests
already know that until you see an actual request or
recommendation from a planning board or variance
board, it is not prudent to speculate on the contents
thereof. As the BOI develops a plan, they may have
underlying priorities that dictate the direction in
which they would like to proceed, but until they
complete an application and submit it to the
appropriate local government entity, speculation
and premature information on their part is also not
wise. Your citizens will have an opportunity at the
time an application is formally made to comment
on that proposal at a noticed recorded public
meeting of a local government entity.
5
The 80i had meetings schedule _J11 oc�r_Co�n_Eil�d
canceled. My under"t nding is—that fey had a mVtng
sclLeduled with a few Chamber Members that grew
beyond the sco.�te of what may have been consir�tre
gjvan the point in thebanningLh-eY-W-ere in.!witLstaDd
corrected if that is no_t.thecA". it gives of the impression
of not being transparent and puts our council in a tough
position I understand that only certain information can be
disclosed and more will in time but because of Mr.
Markmrd we as a community are going to be more on
edge with an my issin information.
How much did the land sell for?
In my experience, it is not permissible to disclose
terms of a buy-sell agreement. Especially if contains
contingencies. Even the final sales terms as
reported to the Department of Revenue are kept
confidential by the Department of Revenue, and
used only for property tax appraisal purposes. The
final sales price of a transaction brokered by a
realtor becomes proprietary information to the
multiple listing service (MLS) they belong to.
That question came un from other Laurel residents that
hays written. _% and it often comes
meeting, sometimes with an undeserved connotation
of skulldrudgery That is situp rong, When all is skid
and done the community will find this was an arm
length transaction betwffen _ u.Ker and seller Most of
the community has this question pretty far down on their
list I worked 14 rears as a mortgage len eNmortgage
manager and understand Montana is a non disclosure.
state We are not really worried about what the state-paid
for the land unless it falls into 2 categories 9 Was there
an ove&payment that will hinder the facilities ability to be
built saWY NO 2 Was there a kickback in any way to Mr.
Markegard or the Mayor NO You yourself can't answer
these l can erg se _knv-w tl_te-e-opLe iltvolved weLl
enough to know better and we wouldn't be able to
answer them either until later down the line.
Why do you need 114 acres for 32 beds?
My guess is that though we may not have needed it,
it will benefit Laurel in that it provides a buffer to
the community and the school, and... it could have
been the preference of the landowner to sell all it or
none of it.
6
Per a letter from DPHHS to the b_cdget diLejr,_tor F
request is how I believe we attained io says that they plan
to build u the he facility, The state itself says this is phase 1.
Pee 2 simply adds 32 more beds to the facility whit
k pjn�the ADmin.and support staff areas the same
Whether those beds will ever be_added is a big_&but we
asked for a de�lgn that would allow theaxis i ataff
area�4�erve the whole Ro uQ lation without adding more
square feet to that i2art of the new fay ' . The staWhas
_
erienc id revenge contraction as we see the end of
the residual income tax revenue from all the COVID era
ject�s fund V Federal dollars It may years befo"_
we have any money for additional infrastructur_ See
the plan details on a Public Power Point Presentation,
pages_$Q given on December 1%2025. The link is
here: This directly implies that there is going to be more
built on this land We all know the facile isnUoing to be
built on the border next to the school however, our kids are
our highest priority and this still poses a threat to their
safety.
Will it be used for future expansion of prisons for the
"criminally insane", or for "the worst of the worst", or for
"murderers and rapists"?
Those choices of words are certainly unfortunate
and in my view, inaccurate hyperbole. Mental
illness can affect any one of us, or any one family at
any given time. There but for the Grace of God go
you or I. Most of the clients of the facility are there
to be evaluated to see if they have the capacity to
stand trial in answer to the charges against them. If
they do not have capacity, the staff works with
them to recover from their illness to the point they
can participate in their own defense. The vast
majority of those held in this proposed facility have
not been convicted of anything yet. And nearly all
will be discharged back to the jail that they were
brought to the facility from. Nearly every state in
the US is building capacity into their forensic health
system, so yes if current trends continue, at some
point in the future, Montana will need more
forensic beds. It's hard to predict where that
demand will be, or where those beds may be
located.
7
/�J AtWj.!(ness is o ro1 ible --it-upon-no-on—EL Again.
our community fea►izes that facility needs to be built but
this location is the issue Billings does have manyLopons
formental illness help nv-t-f-ostt-e_ju�tice_ipv9lvesl
individuals and 1 hope that anyone in need can get the 6ela
they need. !believe that nearly all the men and women
in this fa dlrect(y from the Yellowstone
County Dentention center and detiention Centers to the
east of Billings The advan age to this facility is=-that if
neccessary,the inmate/vatie2ts can be inv9hin.may
[�eaied. Most but of course,�Lot al�lm r greatly
With Proper medicatLon on board. That can not be done
at a Detention Center, li can only be done in a Stag
cility That being said, our children's safety does not
need to suffer because of this location. Look he_pLan
over, This is state of art securi embe_dod ink
design. This can still be built without vuttings'�lly risk on our
children.
Will the state will pay for expanded water infrastructure.
If the lot and/or lots are annexed into the city, as
per city regulations and planning requirements, the
Board of Investments will pay the appropriate fees
appurtenant to their lots and the infrastructure
thereon. They will pay all the ongoing fees and
assessments that the city normally charges to their
customers.
This is dawn the road_a nd-urLtil a formal agreement is set.
you and 1 will not know the answer We can speculate
based on oast deals as history provides insiht. This does
not bode well for funds other than normal a-pplication fees
and could harm the city by way of inability to--ek its
infrastructure upto par. They will M a-1 water.sv-w-e_r,
and 1 oresymg solid vil tQ fees. L3hink laurel may have
�a fire seLvice fee.
Will Warm Springs close and move to Laurel?
Given the fact that you, the State taxpayers just
spent tens of millions of dollars upgrading the main
hospital, and by the way, it is a beautiful, and now a
much safer facility, no. We are currently in the
process of spending another 20 million to repurpose
another building for patient care on that campus. As
hard as it was to get the money to rehab those
buildings at the Springs, it would be impossible to
8
conceive of a scenario in which the legislature
appropriates another half a billion dollars-plus to
move the operation here to Laurel. It simply isn't
going to happen. Western Montana legislators, local
leaders, and County law enforcement in western
Montana, appreciate the proximity of nearby
mental health services. They also appreciate the
economic impacts that the high paying union jobs
have on their communities.
Untprtunat-e(y_aeither you or l__ra_o know what the_f�ture
holds for Warm S zings I will point to the history of the
facility and the history of the funding of the _ With a
google search we find that in 2022 the facility lost its
accreditation due to many failures Along with well known
turnoverandwin over budget we won't know what will
happen, Veiy important to a budget and being able to keep
a facility safe, we also read in DPHHS letter to the state
budget director"as you know. the Legislature allocates
$26 5 Million for this project to the BOI, pending your
aAprova HoweveG it is anticipated that these funds may
be insufficient to construct a "hardened"facility designed
to safe(y and secure(v serve a forensic population." The
D-partment initially thought civil beds might bpL
priority.Afterg t r' he data z�L1�nching the
numbers, they pMLe-tied that the m -. t ar_e-s_sjn_g need
ryas to addre�� the g[�wjllg�sic�itlist. Thus a
national trend also So that isle story there We looked
at a civil facility in Idaho early on, and thAtLs-wh__
lower intial estimates came from Further a bardfened
�rensic building could have the flexib11 for use as
civil ing
that we have not just 1 institution that goes over budget and
lost its accreditation but this one isn't even built yet and is
anticipated to be over budget I will also note that previous
facility directors have lived and managed the facility from
out Qf state Should we not fix what is broken before
ste p- into anew community having fixed nothing?The
��applied for certification of the newl,v upgraded
facility-. When I came back to the le_►iss_lature, there wm
very few paide a rooms and common areasthe—v eLe
ligature_resi,Etani and h. , other modern life safety-buift
in to the operation. The new_f_urnishings cart not be used
as weap_oQs, etc We have made great strides albeit at
agreat cost. One of the projects just being-completed i
the Deer Lodge Valley is is modern afford�bly ewmpkoM
hous12gLe��red for entry level Oorre�tiQn_Offi�ers at
9
thv-pri�n end for entryltursing level staff at Warm
ri s. we haveltzioyed the bar towards�r2re
permanent ring staff, It's an inovative pDgra-m that
can lead to a down payment for their own home after
five years in these units.
Does proximity to homes and schools pose safety risk? A
Laurel school board member said perception is reality.
Not true. Perception is not reality. Reality, in my
mind, is reflected in the community of Billings and it
would suggest that the proposed facility near Laurel
does not pose an unreasonable safety risk. The
Yellowstone County detention Center and the site
of the proposed new Yellowstone County Detention
Center are across the street from several homes.
There are schools and perhaps hundreds of homes
within a several block radius of the facility. Those
schools are a similar distance from the Yellowstone
County facility as is likely to occur from the West
Elementary School to the new facility in Laurel.
Yellowstone County and the Montana Women's
Prison know how to keep the people safely
incarcerated that we put in their care. The state has
a good record for holding people securely also.
Can y9y-guarantee with 100%accuracy that no one will be
hurt in our community from someone at the fac&W, The
anSweris nQ, no one can make that guarantee. The answff
i�,_a_��s�c_a,2g2t6�tr is tftet�sLttt��vears�_ve had the
Galen facll ity t, he Du�ic has been safes, Torensic
g at the Smogs bfiAnot to-my knD i edge had safety
risks except from incidences of self harm You brim up
-
the women Is prison in Billings as for location. What yqu
don't bring un is that there is a police station and county
courrhMe within a couple blocks of the school This is
also over a mile from the w men's prison. I will also note
that this is the Lincoln renter, not a full K-12 facility, meant
for smaller gLQups for learning The nearest Billings school
is SeniorHS which is over miles awey-end through the
heart of downtown Billing&I will point out that the
distances cited in my memo were from the Yellowstone
County Detention Center(jail) not the Women's prison.
And if you look on MT Cadastral there are many homes
that appraise from $250,000-$400,000 which I was
informed is right at the median price point for Billings
homes.The two schools I was referring to are at 4188
10
King Avenue East and 3700 Madison Avenue
respectively, both owned by School District 2. These are
not similar ditanc�s�11s�also have city centers to travel
through instead of open land They are not comparable, I
can on(Kspeak to hearsay from known current correction
officers and Billings PD but it does not paint a good picture
for how inmates of these facilities re released from their
first hand Meriences.
This facility is 450 yards away from a public elementary
school.
Mr. Mayor and Council members, this is a fallacy.
The State is not going to build a forensic hospital in
the North East corner of the 114 acres. To my
knowledge, there isn't even a road/street to that
part of the lot, nor is there water, sewer, and
electrical infrastructure evident on that end of the
property. The State is going to build where they
have the closest direct access to the Interstate
highway. The State is going to build directly
adjacent to Highway 10, where public access, and all
those utilities are already available. The site near
Highway 10 is roughly1100 yards from the school.
By contrast, the two schools in Billings with the
closest proximity to the Yellowstone County
Detention Center are 1100 and 1140 yards
respectively from that facility's property line.
Incidentally, there are 600 to 700 inmates
incarcerated there at the current time. This number
is in a facility that was originally designed for a
capacity of 434 inmates. A significant number of
those inmates are waiting for a bed to open up in a
forensic facility so they can get their mental health
treatment, and a pathway to their day in Court.
Again,the schools that-Nu mention are not the same as
this is direct line of sight to an el school. These
are not city blocks to navigate, it is currently farmland and
as we can speculate. future other endeavors of similar kind
b-y the state. I'll start with your last email first and
answer it this way. It has been a couple of years since I
drove by West Elementary, but if line of sight from the
school to the Facility truly is your issue then I would
offer this... If from the school grounds you have a clear
line of sight to the Storage units at 1548 Old Highway 10
11
then you may have a point. But if you can not see the
storage units,you will not be able to see the State's
facility which will be directly across and adjacent to
Highway 10. It will be even less visible after the
landscaping is in.
Overall we as a community need you, the state and our
council to understand that we have been left out of this
process. We have uncovered through FOIA that Mr.
Markegard, an unelected official, went above and beyond
without contacting the city council,the city attorney or
most importantly,we the community of Laurel. I am trying
to help where I can, but the real process starts after
something is submitted to your leaders.That won't
happen until the BOI does it's due diligence as to
whether the technical concerns if there are any can be
overcome.And then it has to complete its building,
parking lot, approach planning etc.There is still a ways
to go. We agree with the premise of the facility but not in
this location. I would ask that you respect the people's
opinion as you would your own constituents that you serve
in taking our plea to heart. Please do NOT put this facility
in its current planned location that shares a border with an
elementary school. Please do not push this is safe
because if something is to happen, all it takes is once, one
of our community members, or worse one of our kids
would be hurt. Their lives and safety outweigh any of ours
because they are the future. The children we protect can't
understand the gravity of the situation or speak from
experience like many of us. I talk for my 3 children that
currently attend Laurel public schools,we DO NOT WANT
this facility at this location. I'm running out of steam
tonight. I may have more to say tomorrow night but I'm
done for now. John Esp
Sincerely
Brian Lubinski
Father of 3 and lifelong MT resident
12
From: Brian Lubinski
To: iohnesoforsenate algmail.com
Cc: Cry Mayor;Civil Attorney;Ward 1 ;Ward 1B;Ward 2A;Ward 2B;War A;Ward 4A;Ward 4g
Subject: Re:Forensic Health Facility
Date: Thursday,February 12,2026 8:15:30 AM
I apologize as I was incorrect about the closest school. There is Orchard Elementary school
just over a mile out. My argument in this stays the same as there are many city blocks to get
there and not open field.
In addition I will also mention that the women's prison is on the south side of Billings which
is well known for lower income homes and crime and the current location is in a higher
affluent part of Laurel. I can't speak for certain but I have no doubt this would cause a great
impact to the value of these homes.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2026, at 11:32 PM, Brian Lubinski <brian.lubinski@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Mr. Esp,
I'm writing in regards to your email to our officials as it seems you may have been
asked by someone to write in. As a lifelong Montana resident that has lived in
both the Missoula area and now Laurel for the last 19 years I can say I love living
where I do. We have an amazing community and many people that will jump at a
moments notice to help anyone in need. That being said, I have some notes to add
to the email you sent that contain some facts instead of emotions so that we can
have an accurate discussion based around that instead of how either of us may
"feel" about the proposed facility.
First and foremost, because of the freedom of information act we as a community
were able to find out that our mayor and an unelected official appointed by the
mayor had made the decision to reach out to the state's BOI about bringing the
facility here without the city council's knowledge or the knowledge of our
community members. We have uncovered many lies by these two which are
entered into past meetings records. I understand this doesn't reflect directly upon
you, however, is pertinent information at hand and why the community is very
upset. The unelected official, Mr. Markegard, hid the fact that he courted the BOI
to Laurel without the community's approval or even an opportunity to weigh in on
this.
Contrary to your email or what you have heard, our community is not opposed to
this facility itself,just the location of it. I would guide you to all of the emails
sent in by our community that are in the records of the past 3 meetings to see that
many have said this. Two other cities had put in to have this facility in their town,
both in Eastern Montana, and both with support willingly from many in their own
communities. There is also state owned land in another part of Laurel that does
not impede the growth of our town and is not anywhere near any of the schools.
Again, Mr Markegard has hidden critical information from the community when
he took it upon himself to find land for the BOI without any approvals from the
community.
To your responses in your email, I believe you weren't given the real questions we
are asking of the BOI, our state representatives or the Mayor and Mr Markegard.
I again would guide you to please look at the emails from our community in the
records.
The 1301 and the state itself are not being transparent.
To be clear, the Legislature and Executive branch has given the
task of building this facility to the BOI. The Department still has
some responsibility to provide advice to the BOI on the actual
building design, and the requirements for the safety of people,
both inside and outside of the facility. The land will be owned and
managed by the BOI for the benefit of State taxpayers.
Some of you, as community leaders, have been part of preliminary
plat reviews, and other actions reviewing subdivisions, and/or
variance requests from your citizens. Maybe some of you haven't
yet. Those that have dealt with applications or requests already
know that until you see an actual request or recommendation
from a planning board or variance board, it is not prudent to
speculate on the contents thereof. As the BOI develops a plan,
they may have underlying priorities that dictate the direction in
which they would like to proceed, but until they complete an
application and submit it to the appropriate local government
entity, speculation and premature information on their part is also
not wise. Your citizens will have an opportunity at the time an
application is formally made to comment on that proposal at a
noticed recorded public meeting of a local government entity.
The 301 had meetings scheduled It-ith our Council an(I cuncyled It tzives ulthe
!Mures ion of iiot being tran%(rarent w d.jnas ow-council in a tc)wih position I
urnlerstand that on4y certain iilformatim, can be dise•(osed and-more will he &I
time but because of Wr blarksi'ard tre as a community, are Zoing to he more on
age irith ar�-i,missing hilornialion.
How much did the land sell for?
In my experience, it is not permissible to disclose terms of a buy-
sell agreement. Especially if contains contingencies. Even the final
sales terms as reported to the Department of Revenue are kept
confidential by the Department of Revenue, and used only for
property tax appraisal purposes. The final sales price of a
transaction brokered by a realtor becomes proprietary
information to the multiple listing service (MLS) they belong to.
,Vosl of-the community has this question P etiv Jar clown on theirlis1. I u-orked 14
genre ne o inortgasre lenderlinortgage maaager"and understand?Montana is[i non
cliyc•losure stale We are not really worried about what ilrc stale Paid for"the land
unless it-ally into 2 categories I Was there an overPuyment that will hinder the
ficicilities ability to be hrrilt safely 2 Wa.s there a kickhcrck in ur-V w {v to Mt-.
Markegard or the Mgyor You y or_c r-ye(f c nr'1 answer these cruel uve wouldn't be
able to ansiver them either until liter down the line.
Why do you need 114 acres for 32 beds?
My guess is that though we may not have needed it, it will benefit
Laurel in that it provides a buffer to the community and the
school, and... it could have been the preference of the landowner
to sell all it or none of it.
Per a letter front DPHHS to the hru&et director (FOIA request is how i believe
we attained ill says that the-v Pkin to build uP the-fiwility. The state itse4fsc11,s Ibis
is•srhase I This directly implies that there i.sgoing to he more built on this land.
We all know the jcrcilitr isn't going to be hrrilt on the border next to the school.
however our kids arc our highest PrJ(rrJtb'and this.Still Poses Cl threat to Then"
safety.
Will it be used for future expansion of prisons for the "criminally insane", or for
"the worst of the worst", or for"murderers and rapists"?
Those choices of words are certainly unfortunate and in my view,
inaccurate hyperbole. Mental illness can affect any one of us, or
any one family at any given time. There but for the Grace of God
go you or I. Most of the clients of the facility are there to be
evaluated to see if they have the capacity to stand trial in answer
to the charges against them. If they do not have capacity, the staff
works with them to recover from their illness to the point they can
participate in their own defense. The vast majority of those held in
this proposed facility have not been convicted of anything yet.
And nearly all will be discharged back to the jail that they were
brought to the facility from. Nearly every state in the US is
building capacity into their forensic health system, so yes if
current trends continue, at some point in the future, Montana will
need more forensic beds. It's hard to predict where that demand
will be, or where those beds may be located.
Ifental illness is horrible wul wish it u)on no one Again. our comnzunity realizes
thal cr,f�s di4i,needs to be hrrilt but this location is the issue Billings does have
mcrnysP i rr s4r mental illnc ss help and I hope that anyone in need can get the,
Fhela thex need That being said our children's safety does not need to sulfur
because ot'lhis locution This ran will he built without ImUl.zy c117.y risk on out-
children.
Will the state will pay for expanded water infrastructure.
If the lot and/or lots are annexed into the city, as per city
regulations and planning requirements, the Board of Investments
will pay the appropriate fees appurtenant to their lots and the
infrastructure thereon. They will pay all the ongoing fees and
assessments that the city normally charges to their customers.
This is(Iowa the road and rrtztil a Awmal agreement is ,•et you aud I will not know
the answer We can spgc•zticzte base(!on I)czst deal s us history Ibrovide.s insight.
This does n bt bode well forfztncls other than normal(tlblblication fees and could
harm the cily by iyaX ofinahilifv to keelb its infrastructure w2 to IL
Will Warm Springs close and move to Laurel?
Given the fact that you, the State taxpayers just spent tens of
millions of dollars upgrading the main hospital, and by the way, it
is a beautiful, and now a much safer facility, no. We are currently
in the process of spending another 20 million to repurpose
another building for patient care on that campus. As hard as it was
to get the money to rehab those buildings at the Springs, it would
be impossible to conceive of a scenario in which the legislature
appropriates another half a billion dollars-plus to move the
operation here to Laurel. It simply isn't going to happen. Western
Montana legislators, local leaders, and County law enforcement in
western Montana, appreciate the proximity of nearby mental
health services. They also appreciate the economic impacts that
the high paying union jobs have on their communities.
(rlfbr t z ,v twither you or 1 can kwb►v what the future holds far ld'atvn.Sjbritz�;s.
I will Point to the history of the-facility and the histot•LZ 'the fun(Jill of the
facility With a google secu•ch five find that is 2022 the facility lost its
accrechtaticm due to mcy�v firiltn-es. Aloug with well known turnover and goitz
over budget ire won't know what will hcznnen Very inworlani to a budget and
being able to keep a iwility safe ive also read in DPHHS leller to the.state
b clgel director "cis you know. the Legislanwe allocctled S26.5 Million fctt•this
In.sect to the BOI etz your gPhrova! However. it is anticitlaled that ese
.fuzcls may be iusz((ficienl to construct cz "hardened"faeilit ,designed to sgkfy crud
sf.,cureJ serve az brensic poPukyinn " This is hi-Thly,alczrmitzg that ive have not
Just l itzstitutiotz that goes over hudgei and lost its accreditation but this one isn't
even built yet and is anticipated to be over bu(iZet I will also note that mevious
fac•ili4y direclors have lived aml managed the_kw i y Loin oul of'state. .Should we
not fig- what is hroken before steaPirtg into a new communit-1,hclvitzg frxe
nothing?
Does proximity to homes and schools pose safety risk?A Laurel school board
member said perception is reality.
Not true. Perception is not reality. Reality, in my mind, is reflected
in the community of Billings and it would suggest that the
proposed facility near Laurel does not pose an unreasonable
safety risk. The Yellowstone County detention Center and the site
of the proposed new Yellowstone County Detention Center are
across the street from several homes. There are schools and
perhaps hundreds of homes within a several block radius of the
facility. Those schools are a similar distance from the Yellowstone
County facility as is likely to occur from the West Elementary
School to the new facility in Laurel. Yellowstone County and the
Montana Women's Prison know how to keep the people safely
incarcerated that we put in their care. The state has a good record
for holding people securely also.
( ern you guat-cintee with l00%accurac•v that no one will he lntrt in wo
conrnmm-y-from someone at the,fctc•ilii- The answer is no no one can make that
Ktrcn crrrtee You brim uD the ivonren s orison in Billieus as for location. What
you&)Wt bring ut ) is that there is�i 1)olice stalion(tn(1 county courthouse within a
c ur2le blocks of the school This is also over a mile from the women`s prison. I
ivill also note that this is the Lincoln ceivev not a firll K-12 facilih'. meant for
smaller g-oufor lem-aing The nearest Billijzi s school is.Senior H,S which is
over miles away aml through the heart ot'downtown Billings These are )rot
similar distances(rnd also have city centers to travel through instead of o—lwi
land Thcv are not comPurohle 1 con onl.vs-aeak to he(n•say fi•otn known current
c•orrec•lion officers and Billings PD but it does not Paint a good Picna-e for how
inmates of these fuilitie s are released f•om their first hand experiences.
This facility is 450 yards away from a public elementary school.
Mr. Mayor and Council members, this is a fallacy. The State is not
going to build a forensic hospital in the North East corner of the
114 acres. To my knowledge, there isn't even a road/street to that
part of the lot, nor is there water, sewer, and electrical
infrastructure evident on that end of the property. The State is
going to build where they have the closest direct access to the
Interstate highway. The State is going to build directly adjacent to
Highway 10, where public access, and all those utilities are already
available. The site near Highway 10 is roughly1100 yards from the
school. By contrast, the two schools in Billings with the closest
proximity to the Yellowstone County Detention Center are 1100
and 1140 yards respectively from that facility's property line.
Incidentally, there are 600 to 700 inmates incarcerated there at
the current time. This number is in a facility that was originally
designed for a capacity of 434 inmates. A significant number of
those inmates are waiting for a bed to open up in a forensic facility
so they can get their mental health treatment, and a pathway to
their day in Court.
]gain the schools that you mention are llot the sanzy as this is direct line of sig17t
to an elementary,school, These are not citt�blocks to navigate. it is currently
farmland and as ive can sPecidate. firlrrre other endeavors of similar kind by the
state.
Overall we as a community need you,the state and our council to understand that
we have been left out of this process. We have uncovered through FOIA that Mr.
Markegard, an unelected official, went above and beyond without contacting the
city council,the city attorney or most importantly, we the community of Laurel.
We agree with the premise of the facility but not in this location. I would ask that
you respect the people's opinion as you would your own constituents that you
serve in taking our plea to heart. Please do NOT put this facility in its current
planned location that shares a border with an elementary school. Please do not
push this is safe because if something is to happen, all it takes is once, one of our
community members, or worse one of our kids would be hurt. Their lives and
safety outweigh any of ours because they are the future. The children we protect
can't understand the gravity of the situation or speak from experience like many of
us. I talk for my 3 children that currently attend Laurel public schools, we DO
NOT WANT this facility at this location.
Sincerely
Brian Lubinski
Father of 3 and lifelong MT resident
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 3A
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 5:49 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Forensic Health Facility
From:John Esp<johnespforsenate@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 1:24 AM
To: Brian Lubinski<brian.lubinski@gmail.com>
Cc: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Civil Attorney<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A
<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 113<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 2B
<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4B
<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: Forensic Health Facility
I'm Sorry I forgot to insert the link to the powerpoint from December. John
htips_//archive.legmt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/2027-Biennj.umLCoMMLttees/�ectLQn-B/DPHH -
Dept-Updates-Dec2025.pdf
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 1:18 AM John Esp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:33 PM John Esp <johnespforsenate@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Brian, I'll start with your last email first and answer it this way. It has been a couple of years since I
drove by West Elementary, but if line of sight from the school to the Facility truly is your issue then I
would offer this... If from the school grounds you have a clear line of sight to the Storage units at 1548
Old Highway 10 then you may have a point. But if you can not see the storage units,you will not be able
to see the State's facility which will be directly across and adjacent to Highway 10. It will be even less
visible after the landscaping is in. So I'll now go up to your first email and work through that one. John
Esp
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 1:37 PM Brian Lubinski <brian.lubinski@gmail.com>wrote:
No problem, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I did google distances from the women's prison
off of 27th st. Before we get too far along in this, my main point in this is there are city blocks
separating the school and the prison, not just farm land or soon to be other government
structures. While MT cadastral is a good starting point, it does tend to inflate values. Many times in
my lending career I saw that value above and beyond the actual purchase price. Homes for sale right
now on the south side are going from 150-250k with some outliers. Many of these are multi-family
homes as well. I think a realtor in our area would be a good point of reference for this as they would
know more than both of us.
My overall point to this was direct line of sight.We are not opposed to the facility and what it stands
for, we are opposed to the location.
i
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2026, at 1:15 PM, John Esp <johnefQrsenateC&gmail.c2m>wrote:
Thanks Brian, I'm about to leave Big Timber for an afternoon and evening constituent
event in Livingston. I will try to get back to you this evening... late. I will point out that the
distances cited in my memo were from the Yellowstone County Detention Center(jail)
not the Women's prison. And if you look on MT Cadastral there are many homes that
appraise from $250,000-$400,000 which I was informed is right at the median price
point for Billings homes.The two schools I was referring to are at 4188 King Avenue East
and 3700 Madison Avenue respectively, both owned by School District 2. More to
follow.Thanks for your reasonable response, John Esp
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 8:15 AM Brian Lubinski <brian.lubinski@gmail.com>wrote:
I apologize as I was incorrect about the closest school. There is Orchard Elementary
school just over a mile out. My argument in this stays the same as there are many city
blocks to get there and not open field.
In addition I will also mention that the women's prison is on the south side of Billings
which is well known for lower income homes and crime and the current location is in a
higher affluent part of Laurel. I can't speak for certain but I have no doubt this would
cause a great impact to the value of these homes.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2026, at 11:32 PM, Brian Lubinski
<brtan�ibinsk0@-g,maiLcQ >wrote:
Brian, My responses will be in Bold Red Print
Hello Mr. Esp,
I'm writing in regards to your email to our officials as it seems you may
have been asked by someone to write in. I wrote this because I have
watched the Council meetings and workshops with interest in the
last several months and was impressed by the work they were doing.
I was somewhat confused by the assumptions and in some cases
misinformation that was voiced in Public Comment at those
meetings. So I and I alone decided that it was time for me to share my
opinion on the public record. As a lifelong Montana resident that has
lived in both the Missoula area and now Laurel for the last 19 years I can
say I love living where I do. We have an amazing community and many
people that will jump at a moments notice to help anyone in need. That
being said, I have some notes to add to the email you sent that contain
some facts instead of emotions so that we can have an accurate
2
discussion based around that instead of how either of us may"feel"
about the proposed facility.
First and foremost, because of the freedom of information act we as a
community were able to find out that our mayor and an unelected official
appointed by the mayor had made the decision to reach out to the state's
BOI about bringing the facility here without the city council's knowledge
or the knowledge of our community members. We have uncovered many
lies by these two which are entered into past meetings records. I
understand this doesn't reflect directly upon you, however, is
pertinent information at hand and why the community is very upset. The
unelected official, Mr. Markegard, hid the fact that he courted the BOI to
Laurel without the community's approval or even an opportunity to weigh
in on this. I am not going to comment on this except to say that even
though a delegation first met with Yellowstone County and Billings
and Laurel City leaders on July 28th to get preliminary thoughts on
possible locations from interested parties, and we did look at many,
the Department of Health didn't settle on the priority type of Facility
that they had the greatest need for until October 6th.
Contrary to your email or what you have heard, our community is not
opposed to this facility itself,just the location of it. I would guide you to
all of the emails sent in by our community that are in the records of the
past 3 meetings to see that many have said this. Two other cities had put
in to have this facility in their town, both in Eastern Montana, and both
with support willingly from many in their own communities. True but this
again Brian is my opinion, but I don't believe those two communities
have what Laurel and Billings have to attract and retain workforce
and to provide workforce housing for decades into the future.They
don't have the same level of economic opportunity and the choices in
available housing. You really do have attributes that make
Yellowstone County the number one choice.There is also state owned
Land in another part of Laurel that does not impede the growth of our
town and is not anywhere near any of the schools. The group did look at
that parcel but the expense of delivering basic utilities and the
timeline of Environmental Assessments made that choice
untenable. Again, Mr Markegard has hidden critical information from the
community when he took it upon himself to find land for the BOI without
any approvals from the community. I would beg to differ with you on
this point.The BOI would have found those pieces of ground in any
case.They found several potential locations for another project in
another Montana town, and settled on the location that worked out
most favorably.They develope, maintain well, and add value to every
project I am aware of.
3
To your responses in your email, I believe you weren't given the real
questions we are asking of the BOI, our state representatives or the
Mayor and Mr Markegard. I have said before, I can have opinions,they,
especially the Council and Mayor can not. They have to wait for an
actual proposal to be submitted either to them or to a susidiary
Board. I know it's hard for them to wait, especially in light of some of
the comments, but that's how the process works. I think they are to
be commended. I again would guide you to please look at the emails
from our community in the recordsYm trying to keep up, but you guys
are wearing me down...
The BOI and the state itself are not being transparent.
To be clear, the Legislature and Executive branch has given the
task of building this facility to the BOI. The Department still has
some responsibility to provide advice to the BOI on the actual
building design, and the requirements for the safety of people,
both inside and outside of the facility. The land will be owned
and managed by the BOI for the benefit of State taxpayers.
Some of you, as community leaders, have been part of
preliminary plat reviews, and other actions reviewing
subdivisions, and/or variance requests from your citizens.
Maybe some of you haven't yet. Those that have dealt with
applications or requests already know that until you see an
actual request or recommendation from a planning board or
variance board, it is not prudent to speculate on the contents
thereof. As the BOI develops a plan, they may have underlying
priorities that dictate the direction in which they would like to
proceed, but until they complete an application and submit it to
the appropriate local government entity, speculation and
premature information on their part is also not wise. Your
citizens will have an opportunity at the time an application is
formally made to comment on that proposal at a noticed
recorded public meeting of a local government entity.
The BOI had meetings scheduled with Qur Council�nd cance ed—My.
utzcLerstandingis that th_eyha"m ee tin"r.h ulev itl���ew
Ch rn4_eLM. n1hers that grew beyond the scQD_e of what may have
been constructjy�given the point in the planning they w—ere inLwill
siand corC�Le�Lif�h t is not the case Itgives of the impression of not
being transparent and puts our council in a tough position. I understand
that only certain information can be disclosed and more will be in time
but bec of Mr. Markegard we as community are-going to e more
on edge with any missing information.
How much did the land sell for?
4
In my experience, it is not permissible to disclose terms of a
buy-sell agreement. Especially if contains contingencies. Even
the final sales terms as reported to the Department of Revenue
are kept confidential by the Department of Revenue, and used
only for property tax appraisal purposes. The final sales price of
a transaction brokered by a realtor becomes proprietary
information to the multiple listing service (MLS) they belong to.
That quest%OfT Came unjrt2e[l&ulm-idents that have written
me. andlto�t�comes at Council meek' ga,sometimes v�th an
undeserved connot 'QD-Qf skuL drudgew That is WMPIY wrong-
When all is said and done the comlrLtaltLty will find this wad.r s
n th transaction b�ce qLa e-r-a�"_ller Most of the community
has this question pretty far down on their list I worked 14 years as a
mortgage lender/mortgage manager and understand Montana is-a non
disclosure state We are not reap worried about what the state paid for
the land unless it falls into 2 catUories. 1 n
that will hinder the facilities ability to be built safely NO 2 Was there a
kickback in any way to Mr. Mad a9 or the MAyor. NO YQQYQurself
can't answer these t c-aDbec��elkCtQ�t _ape i v v well
-eDgugh to know better and we wouldn't be able to answer them either
until later down the line.
Why do you need 114 acres for 32 beds?
My guess is that though we may not have needed it, it will
benefit Laurel in that it provides a buffer to the community and
the school, and... it could have been the preference of the
landowner to sell all it or none of it.
Per a letter from DPH S W the budget director(FOIA request is how 1
believe we attained it) says that they plan to build uR the facility. The
state itself says this is phase 1 Ph see 2 simv_l�adds 32 m_one-edsAQ
the facility while keeping the ADmin and support staff areas the
same. Whether those besLsu ill ey-e—r be added is a big iL ut we asks -d
for a design that woulsdallow the
existlDgts�ff aLesZaer a the whole
�t��a�t'on without addingmore s�raf�et to that part of the new
facility, The state has a xperienced revenue contraction as we sere e
end of the residual income tax revenue_irom I the COV ra
projects funded by Fed rem!doltnrs t m�I[,1[earsfore be we have any
money for additional infraatructu a See the plan details on a Public
Power point PreseQta i n ges 80_84 vein December 16 025.
���1s here• This directly implies that there is going to be more�.r�t
onthisland. We all
w ther
next to the school, however, our ki s are ouL-est r/�iority and this still
poses a_threat_ o_the-Lsw-fW.
Will it be used for future expansion of prisons for the "criminally insane", or
for "the worst of the worst", or for "murderers and rapists"?
5
Those choices of words are certainly unfortunate and in my
view, inaccurate hyperbole. Mental illness can affect any one of
us, or any one family at any given time. There but for the Grace
of God go you or I. Most of the clients of the facility are there to
be evaluated to see if they have the capacity to stand trial in
answer to the charges against them. If they do not have
capacity, the staff works with them to recover from their illness
to the point they can participate in their own defense. The vast
majority of those held in this proposed facility have not been
convicted of anything yet. And nearly all will be discharged back
to the jail that they were brought to the facility from. Nearly
every state in the US is building capacity into their forensic
health system, so yes if current trends continue, at some point
in the future, Montana will need more forensic beds. It's hard to
predict where that demand will be, or where those beds may be
located.
dental illness isrhorn- an wish it upon no oL►e. Again. our community
realizes that a facility needs to be built but this locationis-th—e
issue Billings does have many options for mental illness he(p n t for th-e
jusire involved individuals and I hole that anyone in need can get the
help they need. (believe th atnear all the men and women in this
facilittisnrLcome directly}Lom�he Yellowstone County DententiQn
enter and detiention Centers to the eas of 8LIlings. The advantage
to thistacility is---that f nel mat natien-ta-c�e
involuntarily me�l �te�Is�L2�cour not all improvee�t4y
with groper medication on board That can not be-oleai-Ovtention
Center. It can Qn(v beslone i a State Facility. That eing�aid, our
children's safety does not need to suffer because of this location. Look
the plan over. This is state of the art s- curlty eirbeded-in the d"ig2
This can still be built without putting any risk on our children.
Will the state will pay for expanded water infrastructure.
If the lot and/or lots are annexed into the city, as per city
regulations and planning requirements, the Board of
Investments will pay the appropriate fees appurtenant to their
lots and the infrastructure thereon. They will pay all the ongoing
fees and assessments that the city normally charges to their
customers.
This is-cLawn the roadand until a.f9lmal.agreement inset,you and I will
not know the answer. We oan_speculate based on past eaLs� hiS S
provides insight This does not bode well for funds other than normal
application fees and could harm the city by wavy of inability to keep its
infrastructure up to-par, v will pay all water, sewer, and I presume
slid waste fees I think laurel may_h-aY-e--a_fire service fee.
6
Will Warm Springs close and move to Laurel?
Given the fact that you, the State taxpayers just spent tens of
millions of dollars upgrading the main hospital, and by the way,
it is a beautiful, and now a much safer facility, no. We are
currently in the process of spending another 20 million to
repurpose another building for patient care on that campus. As
hard as it was to get the money to rehab those buildings at the
Springs, it would be impossible to conceive of a scenario in
which the legislature appropriates another half a billion dollars-
plus to move the operation here to Laurel. It simply isn't going
to happen. Western Montana legislators, local leaders, and
County law enforcement in western Montana, appreciate the
proximity of nearby mental health services. They also
appreciate the economic impacts that the high paying union jobs
have on their communities.
Unfortunate(i neither you or I can know what the future holds for Warm
Springs I will point to the history of the facility and the history of the
funding of the facilityL With a google search we find that in 2022 the
tacility lost its accreditation due to many failures. Along with well known
turnover and going over budget we won't know what will happen Very
important to a budget and being able to kee-p a facility safe. we also read
in DPHH-S letter to the state budget director"as you know, the Legislature
allocated$26 5 Million for this project to the BOI. pendingyour
appccval Nowem it is anticipated that these funds may be insufficient
tQ construct a "hardened"facility designed to safely and securely serve a
forensic-population," The Department initially thought civil ked-s might
be the ri .Aft-erp--therin h to and crunching-Lelfumb_em
they projected that the m_Q p_ssing need was to a_d_d_rus_tbe
growing forensic waitlist This is a national trend also. So that is the
stoly there. We looked at a civil facility in Idaho early on, and that is
where the lower intial estimates came from Furtl�era rftnead
forensic building could hay-e-tb-e fle-,K[bllLWor u-s"-s-ri:wLb- di The
Inversic,,is not true This is highlyalarming that we have11Q[jd2
institution that goes over budget and lost its accreditation but this one
isn't even built yet and is anticipated to be over budget. I will also note
that Preyious facility directors have lived and managed the facility from
o ft of state Should we not fix what is broken efore stepping into a new
community having fixed nothing?The StB-t@-ap_piied for certification Qf
the 2e_ K�►� r�sd il' It�sLl_ e���k� t eie
there were�ery few pait�nt rooms and ommon areas that were
ligature resistant. and had other modern life safety built in to the
operation. The new furnishings can not be used a_sjeap As etc We
have made great srides�al�Ltat a great�Qst One ot6e its
duet eertg_comp�e� e�ee Va�ey is is modem affordabA
empoye housing, t �9 Correction Officers at the
p!1Son, and for entry nursing<ev_e!staff at Warm Springs._we have
moved the bar towards mm-Pe-ma-Dffln3�u ailtgAt&ff• It's an
inovative prQgr_ar�t' that can lead to a down n__ayment for their-own
home after five yo-afs it-these units-
Does proximity to homes and schools pose safety risk?A Laurel school board
member said perception is reality.
Not true. Perception is not reality. Reality, in my mind, is
reflected in the community of Billings and it would suggest that
the proposed facility near Laurel does not pose an unreasonable
safety risk. The Yellowstone County detention Center and the
site of the proposed new Yellowstone County Detention Center
are across the street from several homes. There are schools and
perhaps hundreds of homes within a several block radius of the
facility. Those schools are a similar distance from the
Yellowstone County facility as is likely to occur from the West
Elementary School to the new facility in Laurel. Yellowstone
County and the Montana Women's Prison know how to keep
the people safely incarcerated that we put in their care. The
state has a good record for holding people securely also.
Can yau-guarantee with 100% acEurar,y h_atnQ-Qne will be hurt in our
community from someone at the facility. The answer is nQ, no one can
. The wer is, as tar as Lcaxtzgather is that in
the 9yes we had theSalen facll�t�G the2ub_l _h_as e n afe. The
Fore wing-at Ae Springs has noAiQ-myknowledge has safety_
tisks e-xcgpt from incidences�f self harm, You bring up the women's
prison in Billings as for location What you don't bring up is there is a
police station and county courthouse within a-c le b10-Oks-OLfte
school This is also over a mile from the women's prison I will also note
that this is the Lincoln centen not a full K-12 facility, meant for smaller
groups for learning. The nearest Billings school is Senior HS which is over
miles awayan_d_through the heart of dow town Billings. I will point out
that the distances cited in my memo were from the Yellowstone
County Detention Center(jail) not the Women's prison. And if you
look on MT Cadastral there are many homes that appraise from
$250,000-$400,000 which I was informed is right at the median price
point for Billings homes.The two schools I was referring to are at
4188 King Avenue East and 3700 Madison Avenue respectively, both
owned by School District 2. These are not similar distances and also
have city centers to travel through instead of oven land. They are not
comparable I can only speak Qhearsay fro m known current correction
officers and Billings PD but it does not painta_gj2d picture for how
inmates of these facilities are released from their first hand
experiences.
8
This facility is 450 yards away from a public elementary school.
Mr. Mayor and Council members, this is a fallacy. The State is
not going to build a forensic hospital in the North East corner of
the 114 acres. To my knowledge, there isn't even a road/street
to that part of the lot, nor is there water, sewer, and electrical
infrastructure evident on that end of the property. The State is
going to build where they have the closest direct access to the
Interstate highway. The State is going to build directly adjacent
to Highway 10, where public access, and all those utilities are
already available. The site near Highway 10 is roughly1100 yards
from the school. By contrast, the two schools in Billings with the
closest proximity to the Yellowstone County Detention Center
are 1100 and 1140 yards respectively from that facility's
property line. Incidentally, there are 600 to 700 inmates
incarcerated there at the current time. This number is in a
facility that was originally designed for a capacity of 434
inmates. A significant number of those inmates are waiting for a
bed to open up in a forensic facility so they can get their mental
health treatment, and a pathway to their day in Court.
A ain. tCho9lsh -tyou menu are not the same�s iiliis direc (Cte
of sight to an elementary srhool. These are not city blocks to navigate, it
is curontlY farmland and as we can sReculate, future other endeavors of
similar kind both, a state. I'll start with your last email first and answer
it this way. It has been a couple of years since I drove by West
Elementary, but if line of sight from the school to the Facility truly is
your issue then I would offer this... If from the school grounds you
have a clear line of sight to the Storage units at 1548 Old Highway 10
then you may have a point. But if you can not see the storage units,
you will not be able to see the State's facility which
will be directly across and adjacent to Highway 10. It will be even less
visible after the landscaping is in.
Overall we as a community need you, the state and our council to
understand that we have been left out of this process. We have
uncovered through FOIA that Mr. Markegard, an unelected official, went
above and beyond without contacting the city council, the city attorney
or most importantly, we the community of Laurel. I am trying to help
where I can, but the real process starts after something is submitted
to your leaders.That won't happen until the BOI does it's due
diligence as to whether the technical concerns if there are any can be
overcome. And then it has to complete its building, parking lot,
approach planning etc. There is still a ways to go. We agree with the
premise of the facility but not in this location. I would ask that you
respect the people's opinion as you would your own constituents that
9
you serve in taking our plea to heart. Please do NOT put this facility in its
current planned location that shares a border with an elementary
school. Please do not push this is safe because if something is to
happen, all it takes is once, one of our community members, or worse
one of our kids would be hurt. Their lives and safety outweigh any of ours
because they are the future. The children we protect can't understand
the gravity of the situation or speak from experience like many of us. I
talk for my 3 children that currently attend Laurel public schools, we DO
NOT WANT this facility at this location. I'm running out of steam
tonight. I may have more to say tomorrow night but I'm done for now.
John Esp
Sincerely
Brian Lubinski
Father of 3 and lifelong MT resident
10
Department Updates
Interim Budget • Section
December • 2025
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES
Agenda
Agency Financial Update
Budget Deep Dive Child Support Services Division
SFY 2026 CSSD Budget
Federal Action and Departmental Impacts
Waiver Status Updates
oSNAP Food Restriction Waiver
oSDMI Waiver Renewal+
oHELP 1115 Waiver
• HR 1 Implementation Update
• Rural Health Transformation Program
Health Care Facilities Division Update
HB 5 and 10 Updates
oLaurel Forensic Mental Health Facility
oHB 10 Long-Range Information Technology Appropriations
BHSFG Implementation Updates
oCCBHC Implementation Updates
o Data Collection Efforts for Key Performance Indicators
Olmstead Plan Quarterly Update(HB 918,2025 Session)
Opioid Settlement Funds
DEPARTMENT OF
• PUBLIC HEALTH&
• HUMAN SERVICES
DPHHS Organizational Chart
eeeHm f PW HU end Human Servlm
Ogenlretlonel CHart __
swims
3
DERRRTMI T OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
�• HUMAN SERVICES
Agency Financial Update
NatalieSmitharn, ChiefFinancialOfficer
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
�•
Federal Government Shutdown
Continuing Resolution
• Expires on January 30, 2026
o Funded the U.S. Department of Agriculture through September 30, 2026
• This includes the funding of SNAP and WIC benefits
• Full benefits were issued for November
o LIHEAP was funded at prior year levels — benefits have been distributed
What happens on January 30, 2026?
• Medicaid, Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, Child Support
Enforcement are funded on a quarterly basis. The Department anticipates that
funds for the quarter ending 3/31 will be on hand prior to a potential shutdown.
OL VARIMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency Financial Update
HB 2 Summary:Agency Budget& Expense SFY 2026 The Department is projecting a
FY 2026 Percent of
shortfall in both General Funds
Funding FY 2025 FY2026 FY 2026 YTD FY 2026 PROJECTED BUDGET and Federal Funds.
Category ACTUALS BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTIONS I REMAINING � REMAINING
General Funds $ 752.552.740 $ 622,071,739 9 240,048,471 $ 851.154.059 3 (29.082,320) •3.541h
State Special Funds $ 251,732.657 $ 298,353.934 S 29,375,767 $ 274.486,891 S 23,867,043 BbDc�- The shortfall in unrestricted
Federal Funds $ 2,394,917.381 $ 2,431.330,575 $ 572,106,624 $ 2,511,236.101 $ (79,905,606) •3.291,: General Fund is primarily in
Grand Total S 3.399202.779 S 3.551.756.248 S 841.530.863 S 3,636.877,131 S (85.120.8831 •2.3974. relation to the Montana
FY 2026 Percent of State Hospital.
• PROJECTEDBUDGET
Fund e ACTUALS BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTIONS , .
Available General Fund• _ 260.422,925 3 283279.598 S 85,580.198 1 293.759,371 3 110.479.7731 -3184 The shortfall in both the
State Specia l Funds 5 68,105,126 S 90255,188 S 18955,136 S 78,593.323 3 11.661.865 12.9z. restricted General Fund
Federal Funds 595,831 360 3 638.522.271 $ 165,247.575 S 628,426,980 $ 10.095,291 I.SB4
Available Trnal 8 924,359a11 31,012,057.057 S 269,790,91D S 1,000.779,674 3 11,277,383 11114 category and the Federal
Restricted General Fund : 492,129,815 3 538,792,141 3 154,460273 S 557.394,668 S(18.602.547) J.4SV
State Special Funds 5 183,627,531 3 208,09874E $ 10,420.631 1 195,E93,567 S 12205.179 5.874 Funds category is related to
Federal Funds S 1,799,086,021 $1.792.808.304 S 406.659,049 3 1.662,809,201 1 !90,000,8971 -'.0214projected Medicaid
P estricted Total S 2 474 843,367 $2.539,699,191 S 571,739,953 S 2.636,097A56 S(96.398265) ^3 Pro 1
Grand Taal 3 3,199,202.779 33.551.756.241 $ 841,5UX3 S=6.177,131 1185,14X53i 7.Z expenses.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency Financial Update: Medicaid
Summary-TraditionslMediald-IncludesAdminis"lon Projecting shortfalls of:
FY2026
2026 YTD FY 2026 PROJECTED o $19.9 million in General Fund
Fund Type FY 2025 EXPENSE FY2026 BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTIONS REMAINING o $gg.4 million in Federal Funds
General Fund S 427.789.785 S 466845,470 S 136627 063 S 4S15DE R79 S (14 663,4D9)
State Special Funds $ 119,222.083 S 117.962.729 S 6.025.3ES S 118,733287 5 [770.553)
Federal Funds S 691,226207 S 894,261.435 S 227.96C.228 S 923,1D1.400 S (28 639.9152)
TOTAL $ 1,4WSD,076 $ 1,479,00,637 $ 370,612,SM $ 1.523.343,566 $ (u,273,929) Utilization is higher than anticipated
Summary-Expanded Medicaid-IncludesAdminlstratlon o Saw an increase in key service
FY 2026areas towards the end of SFY
2026 ttD FY 2026 PROJECTED
Fund Type FY 2025 EXPENSE FY 2026 BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTIONS REMAINING 2025. This has continued into SFY
er.a Fund S 36 401,291 $ 35 265 435 a 3 40.455.953 $ i5,190,5484
S[am Sp—al Funds S 59,312.512 S 5E 623,808 S 3 099.232 3 57,545,050 S 1,275.758 2026.
°edeml Funds S 699.175.367 S lW,231,256 S 174 782247 $ -11�75.,.`.9 S (59,524 2731
TOTAL $ 994.889,170 $ 980,220_.469 $ 192.551.672 $ 1A13,756'sn $ (63,436,0113)
Summary-Total Medicaid-Including Administration !e Decreases in drug rebate percentages
FY 2026
2026 YTO FY 2026 PROJECTED have impacted projected spend.
Fund Type FY 2025 EXPENSE FY2026 BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTIONS REMAINING
General Fund $ 464,191.077 $ 502110.875 S 151.297.261 1 521,964.631 S (19$53.9561
Star=Special Fund-, $ 178.534595 3 176,7Fn.537 $ 9 124 599 S 176.278 337 S 508.200
Federal Funds S 1,790,413.574 $ 1.780.492.694 3 402.742.475 S 1.868 656,930 S (E8,364.236i
,TOTAL $ 2,433,139,246 $ 2,459,390,108 $ 563*,335 $ 2,567,100,098 6 (107,709,9921
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
r- HUMAN SERVICES
Agency Financial Update: Medicaid (cont.)
Legislative
DPHHS DPHHS caseload Projections
January 1 January February Base November
TOTAL Medicaid
By Fund Type
State Funds $ 645,022,373 $ 619,933,996 S 639,511,714 S 648,303,511 $ 669,525,742
Federal Funds $ 1,826.363,120 S 1,759,091,065 $ 1,797,934.715 $ 1.728,318,682 $ 1,817,524,950
$ 2,471,385,493 $ 2.379,025,061 $ 2,437,446.429 $ 2,376,622,193 $ 2,487,050,692
Differencefrom Projections(Shortfall) $ (15,665,199) $ (108,025,631) $ (49,GD4,263) $ (110,428,499)
*These figures reflect caseload estimates,and they do not include PRI adjustments
*Administration expenses are also excluded from the analysis above
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
r HUMAN SERVICES
Montana State Hospital: Budget Detail
Strategies for cost containment:
• Continued efforts in recruitment campaigns for
permanent staff.
MSHSFY 2025 Request LeViilatFinal November
The Department has twice negotiated rate
opem0onsicomracted Services S 69,560.093 $ 42.789,815 S 22.060,332 reductions for traveling staff within existing
Wage Adjustments S 376.163 S 376163 contracts.Continued monitoring/adjustment of
Personal Services S 30.997,892 S 42,825.056 S 43,201 219
PE Reduction $ 2410675, 5 (2,941034) rates to align with the market.To date,the impact
PSAmendmenl . 5.x3-10= of these reductions is estimated to save$5.8
s Soo.Stb.sa6 s 83,589.359 s a»eeec s s xs 7a:
million.
Executive request reduction as compared to SFY 2025 S 16,986.6261
Senate Amendment to MSH Budget as compared to Executive S (15,054,196) Ongoing analysis and adjustment of staffing
ToWL Reduction as compared to SFY 2025 expenses 5 (32,040,822) levels,to include:
Projected Budget Derctr S l)4,169,024) o Accuity-based staffing
o Overtime monitoring through schedule
control
0 1:1 and 2:1 monitoring
To Third-party Staffing Office assessment
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency Program Transfers/Budget
Modifications
• BHDD moved $113,000 from FY 2027 to FY 2026 to cover PB costs. This was a
biennial appropriation. During the turnaround process, the entire appropriation was
allocated to FY 2027. The Department would like to begin work in FY 2026, so it
shifted a portion of this appropriation to the current year to allow for this.
• BHDD transferred $1.6M to HRD to implement Medicaid-funded home visiting
benefits under the HEART Initiative. Although the funding was appropriated
through BHDD's budget, the program will be administered through HRD.
• HFD transferred approximately $937,000 from the operating expense account to
the personal services account to fund the hiring of 41 .5 modified FTE at the MSH
Grasslands facility (to reduce traveler utilization).
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Anticipated Realignment of Medicaid
Appropriations
• As a part of QFR review, the Department identified some misalignment of
Medicaid appropriation that happened during the turnaround process. While
total appropriation amounts are accurate, there were some oversights in the
distribution to the various subclasses.
• The resulting impact had too much appropriation in a restricted category in
the General Fund and too little appropriation in a restricted category in the
State Special and Federal fund types.
• DPHHS will be working with OBPP and LFD to correct these issues.
• The Department is instituting additional training and internal control
procedures to prevent this misalignment from happening again.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
!• HUMAN SERVICES
Contracted Staffing: 7/2025 through
10/2025
Contracted Staffing Report- 071011202S-10!3112025
ew
y Va(>.D[Y Uiwaue t7E
DMren AtlOelq CIMIKfa SUMV T— Plepl[ YIN H— Emuvdml ElOUtse
pro IV+t O>!!K!:1 h. a•J:[JYrYn - C>t flY
Np0 :J!l11415 pull>1O1MAt[!"•fl>l.[ aMIY.' OJI
.tSD lOVY�'1'1W4ArdlSf Il[ - Vbn...:-.. LEW 4 LS.
LSD IVIL^>SIN'A lx'ION:[W[PNn aitic('rYr> �/gHYll U [
[ILLCI[n 14: Y.w,e.M r [w//e C ieOt.
DC' I<rPlTl�:•Y K].DY:CJI/NM /.'J+•ob.nw t W+eM 111 C L'.>•
- (Y,D [(!agWit'WI:A.MISW>3511( wlvp•>ut Na(e wtOt C
YYI [WtDYl AMJtDY:[WPYI< A!r•r•irnw> I.lr-./ fnwr ! 1. 11a1
NSD YICt.(O
[.rti 1>K D>IlcDf lKvnY:[OVPI\> f`aV�+ [[JJ,•!Y W['(4 :in
_4JC K4Y(O wC U.MeUlbw v.c�ur ] CU 1Q'
MG lalp.Tf[KY(lYM>!u[ :Y'1 i1; :IC
_ me [u^1W«c a:r.aew..�� aut c• :a.x
IRSD L1VlpWDi[IGIbN94]I.e`AA u.w.n.gw w.evs.nrw >S [. ldl1.
1! hID Kell wllc [v.•w:(r. ut lulUynw t13 cW ``-1
li qD AY6IW>.T.KJJ4<SC bwt 4. 1W IY i l hJi �:•='+.
11 M!D Ipe1..(A:TKMf:'YIryG P.! D•wlt Yan frJ�7tR1� a1,351�SN.OB' 3SSa,®'
qO GYAV>AY.> •lef-.a1M Ca�D•YnINJ.+v. 0.111 461r
11 qD IWt11 Y1WTD[M1K aer Cat�6A.M I�Iljlln 6l 0(Y..' Sly
1 .•D llll(KwY YIII aen !6!DIOMlO>i.scra rm O.G: rs'
li .iD rlDMlfa>StlwnlY lu[ prrt(w. l(M 16fi ,- 15
1 .•D IiAD'1R1M1 P!>UfLIOl G+<TSK [tRt<s> toss l0.CD5 3a.466 E8ga6
t[Pvlc[snr D..nc.. A.I�lY11rY.. 1.825 z.: Iss.ls
u qD Mur+arl P•e lr. :w!lenlu+m.l ss] oz: lzsl-
U •IID aDY1MT9lYCM 1pUTb11 LL[ D.w(4[ 11A 14r1s•`yt 5-9.6:2,l 3a9,O1'
I) Cl,a(f.06 Yt llW�ipUMM1lt( Ov(1laY YJ111Y1
fl MD •'f[Ui AY1N ltLL1 L:nv.6esl.! Gt10lr.wl I+Irn 15 DQ 3 1.61
qD t 1SIY1 Ova U.> !✓! 965`_ 13.N• 930.]0
11 qD WALtlY:tOe DM fPL1Y AmY'@Ww Ctt OL.eC k.I.le.a•. 3( O.D. 2>]:
Il •14 IYN YN,n bmr�O,•Yt a'1f`!!.M(ti.•tot l' O.0� l.on
u ••[ e!A[tr�a+noAl[s IY[ D•.•cr. — z9x a.l, e9zDi
TY 15B.baf 2t2B:. 11
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
!• HUMAN SERVICES
Overtime Reporting: 7/2025 through
10/2025
HB 2 Overtime Hours by Drvislon 07!01/2025-10/31/2025 Overtime Hours Description
Most overtime hours are concentrated in the following divisions:
i f f _ f•
HCSD 4,487 6.30 200,907 HCSD:Overtime hours due to vacancies.The primary staff type
CFSD 2,179 3-06 106.280 accruing overtime is Client Service Coordinator.
DO 571 0.80 41,878
BFSD 85 0.12 4,679 CFSD:Overtime hours due to workload associated with caseload.
PHSD 51 0.07 Z643 Primary staff type accruing overtime is Child Protection Specialist.
OIG 26 0.04 1,418
TSD 782 1.10 44,422
BHDD 117 0.16 6.410 TSD:Overtime hours due to the workload associated with on-call
OSD 36 0.05 Z173 support.The primary staff type accruing overtime is IT Systems
SLTC 5 0.01 264 Administrator.
ECFSD 216 0-30 12.787
HFD 13.285 18.66 556.522 HFD:Overtime hours primarily due to vacancies.The primary staff
type accruing overtime is Psychiatric Technician.
OEPARTMEMT Of
PUBLIC HEALTH&
f• HUMAN SERVICES
Supplemental Pressures
Budget Status Report
• Projecting budgetary shortfalls related to Montana State Hospital and Medicaid expenses in FY 2026
Supplemental Pressure
• Healthcare Facilities Division
o Amendment on the Senate Floor-reduced the budget for the biennium by$35 million
o Projecting a shortfall of$14.2 million in SFY 2026
Medicaid Caseload(will impact both General and Federal Funds)
o Utilization upturn in key service areas late in SFY 2025 has continued in SFY 2026
o Reductions in drug rebate%
o Caseload projections adopted during the session were too low
o Projecting the following shortfalls in SFY 2026
• General Fund:$19.9 million
• Federal Fund: $88.4 million
Monitoring for SFY 2027
o Healthcare Facilities Division and Medicaid Caseload
o Implementation of HR 1 provisions
o FMAP changes-beginning in SFY 2027,the state share will be larger than was anticipated in the budget
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Budget Deep Dive
0
Child Support Services
Division
Christie Twardoski, Division Administrator
OfficerNatalie Smitham, Chief Financial
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
,•
Introduction
MISSION: Improve the economic stability of Montana families
through the establishment and enforcement of parental obligations.
The Montana CSSD provides the following child support services:
• Locating parents;
• Establishing paternity;
• Establishing and enforcing financial and medical support orders;
• Modifying child support orders;
• Collection and disbursement of child support.
DEPARTMENT OF
rr PUBLIC HEALTH S
y HUMAN SERVICES
Montana Families Impacted
„Mdu Gun Toots '. Ten
FI.fiME %
1. PN.P.
To.. C"". '7 Richb�
MaG�
Mypyli J 4
• 42,000 children ti• a..
� VOW
27,000 cases 6a.aN
• da rune
a�C
i�
yrte
y;a Hum Pa.d w.�
4
DEPARTMENT OF
.{•�PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Strategic Focus Areas
State Plan Goal — increase arrears collections on non-paying cases
Strategies
1. State Improvement Plans
• Decrease cases in Locate status
• Increase Arrears payments on non-paying cases
2. Arrears/Non-Paying Cases Specialized Unit
• Used current PB - 6 PB (1 Sup, 5 CWs)
• Shifting resources to focus on non-paying cases (CLEAR licenses)
• Stabilize consistent payments through engagement of case participants
and employers + stabilize consistent payments through engagement of
case participants
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
18
Natalie Smitharn, Chief Financial SFY 2026 CSSD Budget
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SFY 2026 CSSD Budget Summary
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION (CSSD)
SFY 2026 BUDGET
Total Personal Services:$10,986,917 1 General Fund $3,821,750 29.4%
Total Operating:$2,019,557 $13,006,474 State Special $363,533 2.8%
Total PB: 130.81 Federal Funds $8,821,191 67.8%
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SFY 2026 CSSD Budget by Subclass
870H1: ADMINISTRATION 8701-12: REGIONS 870H8: INCENTIVES
$31559,698 $81258,547 $1,1881229
Personal Services:$2,683,958 Personal Services:$7,389,516 Personal Services:$913,443
Operating:$875,740 Operating:$869,031 Operating:$274,786
PB#36 PB#94.81
O EPA RTM ENT OF
..I •�PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SFY 2026 Personal Services and Positions
Budgeted (PB)
I
870H1: ADMINISTRATION 8701-12: REGIONS 8701-18: INCENTIVES
$2,683,958 $7,389,516 $913,443
Job TRIG PB Total 36 Job Title PB Total 94.81 Pmaions are budgeted to 870H1&87OH2
Accounting Supervisor 1 Administrative Assistant 2 8 Eligible payroll expendirures are then charged to
Accounting Technician 2 6 Administrative Support Supv 1 87OH8.
Central Mail Unit Tech 2 Career Development Specialist 1
Admin Orders Tech 2 Child Support Investigator 2 67.81
Administra live Specialist 2 4 Child Support Supervisor 12
Administrative Support Supv I CSSD Regional Manager 5
Budget Analyst 2 1
Bureau Chief 3
Career Development Spec I In FY 2025,$73 million in child support was collected
Col lections Agent l 1 1,407 new child support obligations;modified 900 existing support orders
Data Processor 1 This supports 42,000 children
Division Administrator 1
Document Processing Tech 3 Established paternity for 360 children
IT Systems Support 11
Systems Support z
Program Manager 2
3 Total dollars collected per dollar expended(FFY2024):$3.58
Program
Program Supervisor 2 Total dollars collected per PB:$464,145
Training Supervisor _1_
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SFY 2026 Operating Budget
2nd Level Account Detail
870H1:ADMINISTRATION 870112: REGIONS 870118: INCENTIVES
$875,740 $869,031 - $274,786
62000 Operating Expenses $833,813 62000 Operating Expenses $255,002 62000 Operating Expenses $181,786
63000 Equip.&Intangible Assets $0 63000 Equip.&Intangible Assets $21,456 63000 Equip.&Intangible Assets $0
64000 Capital Outlay $0 64000 Capital Outlay $0 64000 Capital Outlay $0
65000 Local Assistance $0 65000 Local Assistance $0 65000 Local Assistance $0
66000 Grants $0 66000 Grants $0 66000 Grants $0
67000 Benefits&Claims $0 67000 Benefits&Claims $0 67000 Benefits&Claims $0
68000Transfers-Out $41,927 68000Transfers-Out $101,796 68000Transfers-Out $0
69000 Debt Service $0 69000 Debt Service $447,990 69000 Debt Service $93,000
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SFY 2026 Operating Budget
3rd Level Account Detail
870H1:ADMINISTRATION 870112:REGIONS 870118: INCENTIVES
$833,813 $297,789 $184,786
62100 Contracts $303,369 62100 Contracts $153,969 62100 Contracts $149,287
62200 Supplies&Materials $8,757 62200 Supplies&Materials $27,971 62200 Supplies&Materials $0
62300 Communications $52,544 62300 Communications $7,992 62300 Communications $0
62400 Travel $17,515 62400 Travel $0 62400 Travel $15,000
62500 Rent $43,787 62500 Rent $19,979 62500 Rent $0
62600 Utilities $0 62600 Utilities $0 62600 Utilities $0
62700 Repairs&Maint. $52,544 62700 Repairs&Maint. $3,996 1 62700 Repairs&Maint. $
62800 Other $350,926 62800 Other $83,913 62800 Other $17,500
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
[4
CSSD Operating Budget Totals by
Category
62100 -Contracts $ 606,625 46.34%
62200-Suppties &MateriaEs $ 36,728 2.81uh
62300-Communications $ 60,536 4.62%
62400-Travet $ 32,515 2,48%
62500- Rent $ 63,766 4.87%
62600- Utitities $ - 0.00%
62700- Repairs &Maintenance $ 56,540 4.32%
62800 -Other $ 452,339 34.55%
$ 1,309,049
DEPARTMENT 01
• PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
62100 - Contracts
, •
• Printing charges — 22.8%
• Process Service Fees — 21.5%
• E-Government Transaction Fees (credit card processing) — 17%
• IT Consulting and Professional Services — 11.2%
• Medical Services — 10.2%
• Records Storage Fees — 10%
• Laboratory Testing — 2.9%
VENT OF
i 1 PUF3LiC HEALTH&
HUh1AN SERVICES
62200 - Supplies and Materials
11Supplies
• Office Supplies - 83.2%
• Photo and Reproduction - 6.5%
• Minor Equipment - 4.3%
Average Spend = $23.40 per PB per month
DEPARTMENT OF
. PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
62300 - Communications
- .
• Postage and Mailing - 98.1%
• Telephone charges - 1 .9%
DEPARTMENT OF
;,.•�PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
62400 - Travel
. .
• Supervisor travel to regional offices
• Travel to trainings and conferences
Aklm DEPARTMENT DF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
�S
62500 - Rent
. .
• Rental of postage meters - 4.4%
• Motor pool lease - 1.5%
• Lease of photocopier equipment - 50.81%
• Software License Fees - 43.3%
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
t 'j HUMAN SERVICES
62700 - Repairs and Maintenance
62700 - Repairs and Maintenance
• Minor building maintenance and repair - 100%
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
62800 - Other
62800 . ,MAN 3-
• Fee Collection Expense - 93.5%
• Meeting/Conference Costs - 1 .1%
• Taxes, Assessments - 1 .3%
DEPARTMENT 01
}.I( PUBLIC HEALTH&
p HUMAN SERVICES
Federal Funding and Programs Summary
Funding Source/Program Title Key Role&Funding Mechanism Interaction with CSSD(IV-D)
Primary Title IV-D(Social Establishes the federal-state CSSD's Mandate:Locates parents,establishes paternity,
Federal Office of Child Support Security Act) partnership for child support and establishes/enforces support orders(wage
Enforcement enforcement. withholding,tax intercepts,license suspension).
Funding:Federal matching grant,
providing 66%Federal Financial
Participation(FFP)for eligible state
costs.
Performance Funding Federal Incentive Rewards states based on Reinvestment Requirement:Montana must reinvest the
Payments performance across five key full amount of incentive payments back into the child
measures(e.g.,Paternity support program.
Establishment,Order Establishment,
Current Support Collections,
Collection on Arrears).
Title IV-A(TANF Provides temporary cash assistance Automatic Referral:IV-A recipients are automatically
Block Grant) to needy families. referred to CSSD for services.Reimbursement:Support
collected may be retained by the state and federal
government to offset IV-A costs.
Title IV-E(Foster Provides federal funding for foster Cost Offset:CSSD establishes and enforces support
Care&Adoption care maintenance and adoption orders against parents whose children are in state
Assistance) I subsidies. custody,helping to offset state IV-E expenditures.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Federal Action
Jessie Counts, Human Services Executive Waiver Status Updates
Rebecca d- Camera, Medicaid
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SNAP Food Restriction Waiver
• SNAP Food Restriction Waiver allows states flexibility to restrict certain foods from purchase with SNAP funds.
• As of December 2025,18 states have waivers approved from FNS with targeted implementation dates in 2026.
• Process to request a waiver:
o States complete the waiver,to include type(s)of food to be restricted,implementation plan,and monitoring
and reporting processes,followed by submission to FNS
o FNS reviews the waiver for compliance
o Upon FNS approval,states implement the food restrictions in partnership with EBT vendor and retailers
• As part of the Rural Health Transformation Program,DPHHS has committed to applying for a Montana SNAP
Food Restriction Waiver in the spring of 2026.
• As part of its commitment to stakeholder engagement,DPHHS has held exploratory discussions with retailer
groups,including organizations representing convenience stores and the beverage industry.
o The policy must restrict one(or more)of the following:Soda,candy,energy drinks,fruit/vegetable drinks with
less than 50%natural juice,and prepared desserts.
• DPHHS will formally initiate waiver design activities in January 2026
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
SDMI Waiver Renewal +
The waiver renewal application was submitted to CMS in June 2025. BHDD has responded to
CMS comments and is awaiting final review by CMS. The expected effective date is January 1,
2026. The current waiver approval was extended through the end of December 2025.
Key features included in the renewal:
• Changed the name of the waiver from SDMI Waiver to Hope Waiver
• Added new reserve capacity for youth transitioning to SDMI waiver and
individuals discharging from the Montana State Hospital and the Montana Mental Health
Nursing Care Center
• Incorporated updated 1915(c) technical guidance, providing assurances and adding
language to clarify that each waiver service is necessary to avoid institutionalization
• Updated reimbursement rates to implement legislatively appropriated increases
DEPARTMENT OF
; PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
HELP 1115 Waiver
• Submitted to CMS on September 2, 2025, to align Montana's Medicaid
expansion program with MCA and HR 1 .
• Recent Director's Office discussions with CMS suggest that CMS
does not intend to approve community engagement (CE) through
1115 waiver authority
• DPHHS has signaled its intent to immediately shift CE authority
request to a State Plan Amendment as soon as template is available
in early 2026; CMS remains supportive of Montana's early
implementation along with other states
• DPHHS intends to amend existing 1115 waiver to include premium
authority only; CMS review and approval timeline remains unclear
DEPARTMENT OF
• PUBLIC HEALTH&
• HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 Implementation
Update
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : Medicaid Implementation Planning
Eligibility Determination Requirement Changes
• For the Expansion population, FIR 1 requires redetermination
every six months for most individuals (rather than the current
annual process) and community engagement or exemptions to
be verified/approved prior to eligibility
• As a result of these additional requirements, autorenewal rates
are expected to drop, and case processing time may increase
• Approximately 61 k individuals will be impacted by these
requirements
DEPARTMENT 01
,..L; PUBLIC HEALTH&
W�L HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : Medicaid Implementation Planning
(cont.)
Eligibility Staffing
• To manage the increased workload from these requirements, 59 new staff members are needed,
funded by a 75% federal match
• These positions are required to manage the workload after initial implementation; however,the
Department assumes need for these positions will decrease over time based on a reduction in
enrollment
• Anticipated cost for increased staffing is approximately $4.3M for the first year
o Federal: $3.2M State: $1.1 M
Technology Preparation
• Implementation of Community Assister Portal (early spring) to increase access to online
application and renewal information
• Increased text message reminders to clients (renewal due dates, etc.)
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : Medicaid Changes
Non-Citizen Eligibility Requirement Changes
• Restricts the definition of qualified immigrant to LAPR, Cuban and Haitian
entrants, and COFA migrants
• Non-citizen groups will lose eligibility, including refugees, asylees, parolees,
and other lawfully present immigrants who are not considered "qualified aliens"
• Approximately 200 individuals will be impacted by these changes
• Verifications are completed at all program applications, redeterminations, or
when case changes are reported/processed
• Verifications include state and federal data checks for citizenship, income, and
residency
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : Medicaid Changes (cont.)
Eligibility and Data Integrity Process (ongoing)
• Interfaces Include o Department of Corrections (Incarceration)
o DLI Quarterly Wage Information (Income) o BENDEX / SSA (Income)
o DLI Unemployment Insurance (Income) o State Verification and Exchange System
o Department of Revenue State Tax Records (Income)
(Income) o National Directory of New Hires
o Social Security Death Records(Deaths) (Income/Employment)
o Montana Death Registry System (Deaths) o Child Support Services (Income)
o Social Security Administration (Identity and o National Accuracy Clearing House(Out of
Residency) State Benefits)
o SOLQ-1 (Identity and Residency) o PARIS Report (Out of State Benefits)
o Lexis Nexis (Identity and Residency) o Federal Data Service Hub (Medical
Insurance)
�.'• PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
c
HR 1 : Medicaid Implementation
Planning: Cost Sharing
• Premiums: dependent upon CMS approval of 1115 HELP Waiver
o Premiums may be implemented alongside community engagement
o Exploring options to operationalize premium processing
o DPHHS desires to leverage prior operational design and processes
(from previous HELP waiver) to the fullest extent possible
• Co-payments: MCA currently prohibits co-pays for Medicaid Expansion
o In CY2026, DPHHS will begin planning activities to comply with HR 1 co-
payment requirements that take effect in 2028
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
• HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : Projected Impacts to Medicaid
Expansion Program
Projected Enrollment,Expenditures and PMPM by Fiscal Year
WITH Eligibility Changes
2027 2028 2029
Enrollment 77,179 67,631 67,182
PMPM $1,068 $1,159 $1,223
Expenditures $989,510,279 $940,627,067 $986,242,220
Projected Enrollment,Expenditures and PMPM by Fiscal Year
WITHOUT Eligibility Changes
2027 2028 2029
Enrollment 79,560 81,151 82,774
PMPM $1,065 $1,118 $1,174
Expenditures $1,016,780,695 $1,088,972,125 $1,166,289,146
Total Impact (S27,270,417) ($148,345,058) ($180,046,925)
Funding of Fiscal Impact
General Fund ($1,917,001) ($10,720,181) ($13,342,161)
State Special Fund ($810,041) ($4,114,325) ($4,662,531)
Federal Fund $24,543,375 $133,510,552 S162,042,233
OEPIIRIMEHT 01
PUBLIC HEALTH&
• 1 HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : SNAP Changes
SNAP Program Changes
Sections 10002-10012:Tighten eligibility and SNAP Payment State Match SNAP Benefits Changes I State Federal
redefine exemptions Error Rate Average SNAP Benefit 24/25 $- $168,092,180
• System reprogramming and staff retraining
• Risk of higher payment error rates(PER)and Less than 6% 0% Projected Change for SFY $6,303,457 $161,788,723
potential federal sanctions 028 at 5
• Outreach and education costs to prevent client 6%to 7.99% 5% Projected Change for SFY
COnfUSIOn 2028 at 10% 12,606,914 $155,485,267
8%to 9.99% 10
SNAP FMAP Changes SNAP Admin Changes 23 State Federal
Administrative Match Reduction:Section 10007 10%or higher 15% Average Expense at 50/50 S12,373,791 S12,373,791
•
reduces federal reimbursement for SNAP administrative SFY 2027 Expense at 75/25 $18,560,686 $6,186,895
costs from 50%to 25%,increasing Montana's share to
75%, Potential annual net
c Effective date is 10/01/2026. increase based on Average $6,186,895 ($6,186,895)
Expense
• Benefit Match Requirement:Section 10006 introduces Net increase for 75%of
a state match for SNAP benefits starting FFY2028. SFY 2027 $4,640,171 ($4,640,171)
o The benefit cost share will be based on the PER
from the third preceding fiscal year—except for 1.Implementation is 10/01/2027;no effectthis biennium
FFY 2028,when states may choose either FFY 2.Implementation is 10/01/2026;75%impact for SFY 2027
2025 or FFY 2026. 3.Does not include SNAP E&T
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
• HUMAN SERVICES
4t
HR 1 : SNAP Changes (cont.)
HR 1 modified age requirements for existing exemptions and removed previous exemptions for Able-Bodied Adults
Without Dependents (ABAWDs).The table below illustrates the projected impact of these changes.
HR1 SNAP Change Previously Eligible Number of Individuals Number of Individuals No
Upper age limit increase from 55 to 65 18,868 1,617
Minor in home age decrease from 18 to 14 2,353 1,615
ABAWD Exemption Veteran exemption removal 529 89
Homelessness exemption removal 2,310 1,043
Former foster care youth exemption removal 74 18
Non-Citizen Eligibility Requirement Restricts benefits to LAPR,asylees,parolees 566 238
Energy Assistance Payment Only the elderly and disabled can use LIHEAP as a 23,486 2,218
SUA expense
Number of Individuals
Newly Eligible*
ABAWD Exemption Addition Added exemption for individuals who meet the
definition of"Indian,""Urban Indian,"or"California 0 7,755
Indian"
7-
*Individual does not qualify for another exemption May be counted more than once in this table;numbers should not be aggregated.
DEPARTMENT OF
• PUBLIC HEALTH B
r• HUMAN SERVICES
HR 1 : SNAP Implementation Planning
HR 1 establishes a matching funds requirement based on the Payment Error Rate,requiring states to bear a percentage of the cost of
SNAP benefit allotments in FFY 2028
• Department of Innovative Government(DOIG)project
o Quality assurance/improvement effort supported by OEIPP
o Established a focus group of eligibility and training staff to understand root cause of payment errors
o Next Steps:Develop action plans for two identified root causes
• QA Peer Review Project
o Development of a peer review process for complicated/error-prone cases
o Analysis of error-prone case factors is being completed
o Next Steps:Develop a system to routinely"exchange cases"for a peer review of criteria for error-prone cases
• Ongoing efforts to reduce PER:
o Error-specific training(i.e.,detailed training on household composition,income)
o Updated interview strategies for open-ended interview questions
o Increased communication between OIG and HCSD
o Alignment of processing policies with review guide
DEPARTMENT OF
-• 19 PUBLIC HEALTH&
.' t.' HUMAN SERVICES
4_.
Rural Health
Transformation Program
Rebecca • - Camara, Medicaid and Health Services Executive Director
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Background: Summary of Funding
Opportunity
• RHTP will provide a $5013 total opportunity across states, with each
state receiving funding based on a set of criteria.
Potential Montana funding over the 5-year RHTP period (—$1 B)
Application: Distributed based on
application content (e.g.,proposed
Baseline: Equally $100-400M 1 initiatives, policy actions) and quality of
distributed among application
approved States $500M
Data: Distributed based on a pre-
determined set of demographic data
DEPA RTM ENT OF
PUBL IC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
RHTP Timeline
Sep.-Nov. Oct.-Nov. 2026
2025 First review by CMS,with
Stakeholder Dec. 31, potential to re-allocate
consultation & 2025 funds (up or down) based
application Expected on progress
development award date
Implementation
Nov. 5, 2025 Jan. 2026 continues through
Submission Implementation FY31,with annual
to CMS begins reviews/ potential
9 funding reallocations
by CMS
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
+e .+ HUMAN SERVICES
Stakeholder Consultation
The State consulted widely with stakeholders during application development.
During proposal development, the During implementation, the State will:
State: • Continue to engage closely with
• Conducted 1-1 consultations with stakeholders on specific initiatives
Montana PPS Hospitals and CAHs, • Participate actively in a twice-
tribes and >20 other rural health annual stakeholder consultation
stakeholders hosted by the Montana Office of
• Hosted a webinar with nearly 900 Rural Health
registrants
• Reviewed more than 300 RFI
responses
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Montana's RHTP application includes
five integrated initiatives
Montana submitted its application to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) on Nov. 5 with five integrated initiatives that align with the
State's priorities
• Develop workforce through recruitment, training, and retention
• Ensure rural facility sustainability and access through partnerships and
restructuring
• Launch innovative care delivery and payment models
• Invest in community health and preventive infrastructure
• Deploy modern health care technologies to guide rural health interventions
DEPARTMENT 0'
:: U HEALTH H i
HUMAMA N SERVICES
Initiative 1 : Develop workforce through
recruitment, training, and retention
To attract more health care providers to rural and frontier areas in Montana, DPHHS
plans to invest RHTP funds in:
• Recruiting health care providers by increasing access to local pipelines and
apprenticeships, and reimbursing related instruction costs
• Increasing ability to train health care providers in rural and frontier areas by
creating more physician residency slots, rural training tracks, and incentivizing and
training supervisors
• Encouraging providers to stay in rural Montana and have ongoing training for the
skills they need to treat the rural population (e.g., primary care/behavioral health
integration)
1f DEPARTM ENTOF
1-•1; PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
54
Initiative 2: Ensure rural facility financial
sustainability and access through partnerships and
restructuring
To support rural hospitals that face economic challenges due to low utilization, DPHHS plans to use
RHTP funds for the following:
• Advising on profitability to assist rural hospitals in improving operations and profitability by
providing technical assistance and financial incentives to adjust services and staffing based on
community needs
• Connecting to specialists and fostering provider partnerships by enhancing partnerships and
telehealth services that will link rural hospitals with specialists statewide, including virtual care for
stroke and mental health, along with improved transportation coordination
• Building partnerships by fostering collaboration among rural facilities that will enhance their
negotiating power to reduce costs for administrative services, medical supplies, and medications
1 Total budget includes both direct DPHHS and contractor/subrecipient managed spend
DEPARTMENT OF
r PUBLIC HEALTH&
r�,+tiy HUMAN SERVICES
Initiative 3: Launch innovative care
delivery and payment models
Montana residents frequently face challenges accessing health care services beyond hospital
settings. To enhance the delivery of care in rural areas, DPHHS plans to use RHTP funds for:
• Incentivizing value-based care,transitioning more rural health care providers to value-based
care models, which focus on reimbursing for the quality of services rendered
• Authorizing "Treat in Place," empowering EMS to deliver on-site care when feasible to reduce
emergency room admissions, along with upgrading ambulances and EMS equipment
• Expanding rural pharmacy services, permitting and equipping pharmacists to prescribe
medications and offer basic primary care, as well as manage chronic diseases
1 Total budgetincludes both direct DPHHS and contractor/subrecipient managed spend
DEPARTMENT OF
�1 PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Initiative 4: Invest in community health
and preventative infrastructure
Rural Montanans frequently lack access to preventative health care and infrastructure to promote
healthy lifestyles,which leads to a high level of chronic disease. To address this, DPHHS plans to invest
RHTP funds in:
• Increasing care in community-based settings by facilitating more primary care and behavioral
health in schools through partnerships with FQHCs and other providers and purchasing/retrofitting
mobile care vans to bring services to rural communities
• Repairing outdated rural health care infrastructure by funding minor renovations and repairs for
facilities, and ensuring future Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) can provide crisis
"safe spaces"
• Investing in community spaces that promote healthy lifestyles by providing one-time funding for
community gardens and similar projects to improve rural population health and nutrition
7 Total budget includes both direct DPHHS and contractor/subrecipient managed spend
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Initiative 5: Upgrade health care
technology to coordinate and improve care
Rural communities in Montana often face limited access to care, fragmented clinical
infrastructure, and gaps in data integration that hinder timely, informed decision-making. To
address this, DPHHS plans to invest RHTP funds in:
• Enhancing data usability and health interventions by creating tools for actionable insights
using Montana's health data (hospital and behavioral health bed registry) and implementing
monitoring and evaluation programs leveraging data warehouse
• Modernizing Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems for rural providers by updating EHR
systems for providers on outdated (non-HITECH certified) platforms and funding consumer-
facing EHR modules to enable nutrition and chronic disease management and remote patient
monitoring
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Considerations for Distribution of RHTP
Funds
• Funding across all initiatives, including direct incentives, will support facilities and
providers operating in HRSA-designated rural counties and rural census tracts within
Montana's five non-rural counties
• HRSA defines 51 of Montana's 56 counties as rural. For the 5 countries that are
considered metropolitan (Cascade County, Gallatin County, Lewis and Clark County,
Missoula County, Yellowstone County ) there may be portions that would be defined as
rural based on HRSA criteria
• The State will continue to gather input from stakeholders that represent rural
communities, facilities, and providers, through the Office of Rural Health twice-annual
gathering and ad-hoc touch points as needed
DE PART ME NT 0'
PUBLIC HEALTH&
�N-bp HUMAN SERVICES
RHTP Budget Submitted to CMS
Spend Category Breakdown
Community Contractors Contractors
Rural based Rural Rural (Rural (community-based Contractor RHTP
Sub-Initiative providers providers communities tech DLI Provkh-) care delivery) (Tech) admin Total
1.1.Increase recruitment of rural health workers $74 $
74 12 Expand clinical training capacity _ _ __$29 $29
1.3 Retain and upskill rural healthcare workforce _ $14 $14
21 Launch Center of Excellence $350 $68 $418
2.2 Increase access through clinical partnerships $7 $7 _ $7 $t o $10 $10 $51
2.3.Facilitate vendors and shared services _ $5 _ $5
3.1 Implement innovative payment models $8 $7 $15
3.2.Modernize EMS care model $16 $13 $29
3.3.Expand access through pharmacies $5 $5
3.4 Expand outpatient services $35 $35 $71
4 1 Implement community-based care $9 $61 $70
42 Repair healthcare infrastructure $16 $16 $16 $15 $62
43 Invest in healthy lifestyles $17 $17
5.1 Improve HIE usability and population health analytics $6 $5 $11
5.2 Expand EMIR modernization $65 $32 $97
6.1 Admin $30 $30
Totals $472 $53 $17 $45 $118 $142 $106 $15 $30 $1,000
zk�DEPARTMENT11
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
60
Planning for Budget Adjustment
• While the RHTP application process assumed a budget of $1 B, CMS is expected to
notify Montana of its actual RHTP award - likely in the range of $900M-1.313 - by
December 31 .
• The State will then have a short window to submit a revised budget matching the
awarded amount.
• The State has identified the following principles to guide budget adjustment:
o Prioritize workforce, both for funding increases in upside scenarios and to avoid
cuts in downside scenarios
o Do not scale programs that are likely to have limited additional absorptive
capacity
o Hold Admin spend constant
DEPARTMENT OF
�I •1j PUBLIC HEALTH&
r HUMAN SERVICES
Planning for Budget Adjustment: Illustrative
View Based on These Principles
Budget allocation scenarios(SM)
Sub-initiatives S900M S950M S1000M S1100M Si200M S1300M
1.1 Increase recruitment of rural health workers S74
1.2 Expand clinical training capacity $29
1.3.Retain and upskill rural healthcare workforce $14
2.1 Launch CoE to implement data-backed recommendations $418
2.2 Increase regional clinical partnerships $51
2.3 Facilitate vendors and shared services $5
31 Implement innovative payment models $15
3.2.Modernize EMS care model $29
3.3.Expand access through pharmacy enhancements $5
34 Expand outpatient services $71
41 Implement community-based care $70
42 Repair healthcare infrastructure $62
4.3.Invest in healthy lifestyles $17
5 1 Improve HIE usability and population health analytics $11
5 2 Expand EMIR modernization for select providers $97
Admin $30
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
T' HUMAN SERVICES
Each Sub- Initiative has Been Designed Around
One or More Models of Sustainability
1.Time-limited initiatives with lasting impact: RHTP funds for these initiatives cover the costs of programs
or activities that will only be in operation during the RHTP period of performance but that will have a
lasting impact beyond FY2031. Despite the limited time frame,these initiatives create lasting and
sustainable impact by providing crucial resources (e.g., a larger workforce)that will last beyond RHTP
funding, unlock transformation through network effects,and fill existing rural health gaps.
2.Up-front investments intended to be self-sustaining:These RHTP funds support new programs that have
previously been blocked by start-up costs. Once started,these programs should pay for themselves,by
averting more costs than they incur,creating a positive ROL If costs averted are less than costs incurred,
the programs will be phased out;only those programs that show positive ROI will continue beyond
FY2031.
3.Initiatives with a clear plan to transfer responsibility for operating/maintenance costs to a third party
after the project period:These RHTP funds provide necessary upfront investment for programs that
require ongoing operating and/or maintenance expenditures after the project period.These initiatives
each have a designated organization that will be responsible for ongoing costs after FY2031. In many
cases,designated funding streams for FY2031 onwards have already been identified.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Models of Sustainability by Sub-Initiative
Time limited initiatives Self-sustaining following Clear plan to transfer
Sub-initiative with lasting impact upfront investment responsibility
1.1 Increase recruitment of rural health care workers
1.2 Enhance and increasing rural clinical training
1.3 Retain and upskill rural health care workforce
2.1 Launch a time-limited Montana Rural Health CoE
2.2 Fostering and incentivizing clinical partnerships
2.3 Shared services for rural facility cost efficiency
3.1 Implement innovative payment and care models
3.2 Modernize Emergency Medical Service care model
3.3 Pharmacist point-of-care testing sites
3.4 Increase outpatient services
4.1 Make preventive care accessible for rural communities
4.2 Update rural health care infrastructure
4.3 Invest in rural healthy lifestyles 0
5.1 Utilize HIE data to drive decisions and population health
interventions
5.2 Modernize EHRs for rural providers O
ddkk DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Next Steps: Early Implementation
The State is planning for a fast start to implementation, including:
• Stakeholder engagement and partnership formation, which are
foundational across all initiatives
• Governance, procurement, and contracting are being prioritized to
ensure rapid deployment and accountability
• Strengthening DPHHS's capacity to oversee and manage the program
• Establishing metrics, baselines, and progress tracking mechanisms
DEPARTMENT OF
�. PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Preliminary Plan For Procurements and
Contracts
Topic Initiative Total Spend(1111)
Montana Rural Health Center of Excellence 2 $25
Care delivery transformation implementation support 2 $48
Support implementation of rural provider telemedicine platforms and interf acility transport systems 2 $22
Expand I D D telehealth pilot statewide 2 $8
Modernize EMS systems 3 $13
Clinic technical support and payment model interventions 3 1 $16
Expansion of outpatient services and community-based care programs 3&4 $67
School-based care site delivery 4 $26
Tribal program development 4 $34
Improve HIE usability and population health analytics 5 $5
DEPARTMENT OF
•yT PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
bf
Preliminary Plan for Modified PBs to
Support RHTP
Position title #ofpositions
RHTP Program Director 1
Program Managers 5
Grant Manager 1
Compliance Officer 1
Budget Analyst 1
Workforce Coordinators 2
DLI Liaison 1
Community Engagement Regional Liaisons 2
Tribal Liaisons 2
Data and Evaluation Analysts 3
EHR Integration Specialist 1
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Metrics to Track Progress (1 /2)
Metric Baseline FY2031 Target
Ratio of NPs per 100,000 people in rural counties 76.7 per 100k 5%increase annually
Ratio of physicians per 100,000 people in rural counties 89.2 per 100k 5%increase annually
Ratio of RNs per 100,000 people in rural counties 860.9 per 100k 5%increase annually
Ratio of dental hygienists per 100,000 people in rural counties 90.7 per 100k 5%increase annually
Ratio of EMTs per 100,000 people in rural counties 115.0 per 100k 5%increase annually
Ratio of PAs per 100,000 people in rural communities,all rural counties 70.6 per 100k 5%increase annually
Rate of position turnover in rural counties(in health care) Internal data on metric is not collected yet At least to national average
Provider mental health rating Internal data on metric is not collected yet Higher behavioral health ratings
Average ED length-of-stay 3.9 hours 10%reduction
Rural facility operating margin Estimated:-14.5%,to be validated and refined during FY 2026 0%;hospitals breakeven
Total facility inpatient days divided by staffed beds 39.49%average 30 pp increase
Percentage of total Medicaid visits conducted via telehealth Expansion visits:2.12%;expansion traditional:2.33% 15 pp increase
%of Medicaid spend on outpatient care 72.8%spend on outpatient care 80%spend
Treat no Transport CPT use 0%(Treat no Transport not currently reimbursable) 10%of calls
Percentage of total pharmacists prescribing for Medicaid members 0%(Pharmacists currently not reimbursable) 50%participation
ED high utilizers 21.03%all;19.86%Medicaid 10 pp decrease
Average dollar amount spent from Medicaid on Duals(PMPM) $305 yearly average PMPM,non-disabled,no TPL,dual Medicare Stable
Number of crisis safe spaces 1 crisis safe space 11 spaces
DEVARlA1CNi OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
F HUMAN SERVICES
Blue=quality and health outcomes metrics r'°
Metrics to Track Progress (2/2)
Metric Baseline FY2031 Target
Percentage of children who receive a well-child visit in the first 30 Internal data on metric is not collected yet Comparable with national median
months of life(W30-CH)
of diabetics with Al control 37.80%all;27.31%Medicaid 10 pp increase
of those with hypertension with BP control 36.75%all;29.74%Medicaid 10 pp increase
of specific population with Blvll levels under control Internal data on metric is not collected yet Higher levels of control
Behavioral health ED admissions per 1,000 50.61 per 100k 6%reduction
Deaths by suicide per 100,000 total population 26.2 per 100k statewide 10%decrease
Prevalence of students reporting mental health and related risk 43%students reported feeling sad or hopeless for two 10%decrease
behaviors weeks or more
Number of Community Health Aide Program Practitioners 0(CHAP not launched) 200 CHAP providers
Average wait time for behavioral health bed placements across non- Internal data on metric is not collected Reduction in wait time
State facilities yet
Percentage of rural facilities and clinics participating in HIE 73%of hospitals,43%of providers 95%for hospitals;75%for others
Percentage of rural sites connected with HITECH-certified EHRs 88%of hospitals 95%of hospitals
Rural facility financial performance after EHR modernization Estimated-14.48%net operating profit margin based on 10%increase for participating facilities
Definitive data;to be validated and refined during FY2026 Q2
DEPTMNT OF
PUBLIARC HEEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Blue=quality and health outcomes metrics
Health Care Facilities
DirectorDivision Update
Matt Waller, Health Care Facilities Executive
General MSH Updates
Recruitment Updates
• Chief Medical Officer(non-contracted) offer accepted by a psychiatrist who has previous experience working
at MSH.Anticipated March 2026 start date.
• Staffing Manager offer accepted by a nurse who will oversee all functions of the MSH Staffing
Office. Anticipated start December 15.
• MSH Staffing Office targeted engagement with Kaufmann Hall slated to start in early 2026 to review best
practices in staffing,scheduling, internal controls, reporting,and overall oversight.
o Key component of ongoing cost containment
• Dedicated effort to convert Grasslands temporary travel staff to modified state staff positions to further
mitigate financial pressures.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
General MSH Updates
Recruitment Updates
• Implementing strategies for cost containment:
o The second round of negotiated rate reductions for traveling staff within existing contracts are in full
effect and savings are being realized.There is a strong emphasis on converting traveling nurses to State
FTE positions.
o Reduction in 1:1 and 2:1 monitoring has continued to stabilize. Data is tracked weekly for variances
0 25 MSH nurses (non-contracted) have been hired since January 2024.
• The Department remains focused on attracting and hiring qualified personnel, particularly floor nurses:
o Efforts are underway to connect with Montana nursing programs to create recruitment pipelines.
• Agreements Completed: Carroll College(Helena), MT Tech (Butte), MSU Bozeman
• Agreements In Process: Salish Kootenai College(SKC) (Pablo), Missoula College(Missoula),and
MSU Northern (Havre)
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
MSH Recertification
Certification Application to CMS
• DPHHS is actively drafting certification application and plans to submit it to
CMS by December 31, 2025.
• Anticipating CMS onsite recertification survey in 2026. Surveys are
unannounced so continual survey preparedness is mission-critical.
• As with any CMS certification survey of this scope and breadth, there will likely
be findings to resolve, and a cross-functional team will swiftly develop a plan of
correction to mitigate those issues within the timeframes provided by CMS.
DEPARTMENT OF
• PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
MSH Recertification (cont.)
Oversight and Monitoring Improvements
• Approx. 77%of the necessary work to meet April 2025 Snapshot October 2025 Snapshot
the Conditions of Participation (CoPs) is
completed and operational,with continuous
daily monitoring conducted through various
tools,internal audits,and on-site staff
support from Helena. This work has resulted
in a 27%improvement in compliance since
April 2025.
• Helena-based personnel are present on-site
three or more days each week to facilitate
the progression of CoP implementation14
activities,monitor compliance,and promote Total Compliance
corrective actions. ■ Partial Compliance
• The MSH Executive Team and HFP/DO ❑ Non-Compliance
leadership can monitor CoP compliance in
real-time.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
MSH Recertif ication (cont.)
Key Focus Areas of Critical Importance
1. Medication Management and Administration
2. Chart Documentation (provider and nursing)
3. Discharge Planning Documentation and Process
4. Hand Hygiene Compliance
5. Respiratory Program, Bloodborne Pathogens, and TB Testing for Staff
6. Incident Reporting Process
DL�Au}1.1.H*OF
��y;y. PUBLIC HEALTH B
r HUMAN SERVICES
The "Spratt Sprint"
Dedicated DPHHS Initiative to Discharge Remaining Spratt Patients and Close the Unit
• All-hands weekly meetings involving multiple divisions including DO/HCSD/BHDD/SLTC/MSH Social
Services/Medicaid Complex Care Coordinators
o January 1,2025 Spratt Census: 59 patients
o December 12,2025 Spratt Census: 15 patients
o Of the remaining 15 patients,8 have placement and discharge plans and 7 are still awaiting placement
• Rapid procurement of appropriate beds to allow for potential transfer into main hospital
• Dedicated in-house and outside counsel to accelerate necessary guardianship proceedings
• Facility tours and patient interviews with local Skilled Nursing Facilities to encourage placement
• Continued efforts to secure health coverage and identify creative payment options for remaining patients
• Leveraging alternative wrap-around and support services to facilitate successful and suitable placements
p[VI1V1MtHi OF
PUBLIC HEALTH 8
HUMAN SERVICES
Looking Ahead: 2026 and Beyond
Developing capabilities to function as a true health system
• Multi-year planning horizon for capital expenditures, construction,
and deferred maintenance for all DPHHS health care facilities
o Integrated quality plan
o Recruitment and retention of qualified staff at all levels
o Evaluating staffing needs across all facilities to compare and
contrast with nationally recognized benchmarks
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
HB 5 and HB 10 Updates
Charlie Brereton., Director
Montana State Hospital Construction
• Compliance and Recertification Construction
o Target completion: Dec.2025
o Total project cost: $21.3M
\ J10
• Percentage of Completion of Each Unit P i
o Alpha Unit- 99%complete;expected completion Dec.
22,2025
o Bravo Unit- 100%complete
o Delta Unit- 100%complete 4 , a
o Med Clinic - 100%complete B�4Q � 8
F'
o Echo Unit- 100%complete OBSERVATION
HALLWAY
�- D' 'RTMcar of
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Laurel Forensic Mental Health Facility
Project Background
• State-prioritized infrastructure HB 5 - Section 17
project aimed at expanding
behavioral health capacity (2) Prior to the transfer in subsection(1)taking place,the budget director shall adopt a plan from
• Funded with a $26.5 million the board of investments and the department of public health and human services on the facility type and
appropriation in H B 5 location.The board of investments and the department of public health and human services shall report to the
• B01 is responsible for site health and human services interim budget committee established in 5-12-501 on the progress of choosing the
selection,development,and facility
construction facility type and location.Once a plan is adopted by the budget director,the board of investments and the
• DPHHS is responsible for advising department of public health and human services shall provide a progress report at each subsequent meeting of
on facility design/business the health and human services interim budget committee and each subsequent meeting of the long-range
requirements and operating facility planning budget committee that are held prior to December 31,2026
through a long-term lease with B01
• Joint DPHHS/B01 plan must be
approved by OBPP
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Laurel Forensic Mental Health Facility
(cont.)
Project Status
• DPHHS selected Laurel,MT as the location for the proposed 32-bed forensic mental health facility
o Access to workforce
o Promising sites with available infrastructure
o Local partnership
• OBPP approved joint DPHHS/1301 plan on 11/28/25 as required by HB 5
• Continued coordination amongst Laurel officials and DPHHS and 1301 leadership
o DPHHS and 1301 offered public comment regarding facility type and project process during 12/9 City Council meeting
• DPHHS finalizing facility design with DLR Group
• 1301 exploring potential sites and nearing contingent buy-sell agreement following consultation with OBPP and DPHHS
• DPHHS will continue facility operational planning in CY2026
o Further discussion with IBC-B re:operational costs as part of EPP
DEPARTMENT OF
.,:� •1 PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Laurel Forensic Mental Health Facility
(cont.)
Overall Floor
-' Plan Phase 1 :
321803 SF
MOUSING
STAFF
I
o PUBLIC
C
BUILDING SUPPORT
= - - ADMIT
.� MEDICAL
- ru
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
F HUMAN SERVICES
Laurel Forensic Mental Health Facility
(cont.)
J
--�^ OI PARTM(Nl Or
Y. PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Laurel Forensic Mental Health Facility
(cont.)
T a "
DEPARTMENT OF
7 PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
H13 10 Long - Range
Information Technology
Appropriations
Carrie Albro, Chief Information Officer
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
PHH HUMAN SERVICES
2025B and 2027B
Project Status Updates
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Project Status Overview
• DPHHS is actively managing 14 Long-Range IT HB10 projects across multiple divisions
to modernize legacy systems, improve citizen services, and ensure state and federal
compliance.
• The project portfolio is healthy, with progress made across both the 2025 and 2027
biennia.
• Several initiatives are progressing toward key milestones, including:
o Completion of the CCWIS Discovery phase in February 2026,
o the start of EBT development and testing in early 2026,
o completion of SLTC business requirements with a procurement approach decision
in January 2026,
o and vendor selection for the Pharmacy Benefit Management System (PBMS).
DEPARTMENT OF
y PUBLIC HEALTH&
•'�i�n HUMAN SERVICES
2025B - HB10 Status Overview
Planning Procuring Initiating Completed
Design,Develop,
1. CSSD:Montana Systems 1. HCFP:Electronic Health 1. CFSD:Comprehensive 1. MES:Electronic Visit
for the Enforcement and Records and Billing System Child Welfare Information Verification(EVV)
Recovery of Child Support Replacement(EHR) System(CCWIS) System Implementation
(SEARCHS)Replacement Replacement
2. MES:Pharmacy Benefit 2. MES:Medicaid
2. MES:Interoperability and Management System 2. HCSD:Electronic Benefits Enterprise Systems
Patient Access—Mobile (PBMS)Replacement Transfer(EBT)System Integration Platform
Replacement Project
3. MES:Interoperability and
Patient Access—
Integration
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
BH
2025B LRIT HB10
Projects in Motion
Comprehensive Child Welfare Montana Systems for the Enforcement and Electronic Benefits Transfer(EBT)System Electronic Health Records and Billing System
Irrformation System(CCWIS) Recovery of Child Support(SEARCHS) Replacement for SNAP,TANF,and WIC Replacement(EHR)
Replacement Replacement
• 3 of 5 implementation phases have been Federal approval fora Streamlined Feasibility System design and development is in progress. Pursuing a competitive procurement via a Request
started or completed Study and Business Process Analysis was Project remains on target for SNAP/TANF go- for Proposal(RFP)
o Phase 1:Business Process Redesign= received from OCSS on DEC 4,2025 live APR 2026 The RFP materials are complete and subject to
10D%complete Next planning and implementation steps WIC go-live scheduled for SEPT 2026 final internal and DOA SPSD review cycles
pending completion of the Streamlined The difference in program go-lives is based on Planned JAN 2026 for RFP posting and vendor
o Phase 11:Transition&Infrastructure= P 9
45%complete Feasibility Study different programmatic and federal selection no later than MAY 2026
o Phase III:Discovery=40%complete Tentative project kick-off is being re-baselined requirements
• Target go-live date is July 2027 RFP release date undetermined
Pharmacy Benefit Management System Interoperability and Patient Access— Interoperability and Patient Access—Mobile
(PBMS)Replacement Integration
• Participated in a NASPO ValuePoint Finalized scope and analysis of the minimum Exploring incorporating the mobile component
procurement with Georgia,Missouri,and required data elements to support into the scope ofthe Customer Care module
Alaska interoperabillty The team is assessing scope and requirements
• Currently analyzing vendor responses to 7 Application Programming Interface(APIs)will to support procurement next steps.
complete vendor selection and be developed
procurement activities
• Estimated project kickoff is FEB 2026 Target completion:DEC 2026
toDEPARTMENT OF
PUBLICHEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
2027B - HB10 Status Overview
Projects in Motion
Planning Procuring Initiating Completed
Design,Develop,Implement Deployed
1. CSSD:Montana Systems 1. SLTC:Senior Long Term
for the Enforcement and Care System Replacements
Recovery of Child Support
IV&V Services 2. CSSD:State Directory of
2. HCSD:Request for Secure New Hires(SDNH)
Data Connections for HCSD 3. CFSD:Comprehensive Child
Programs Welfare Information System
3. HCSD:Request for (CCWIS)IV&V Services
Improving Timeliness of
Public Benefit Recipient
Notifications
4. HCSD:Request for Public
Benefits System Efficiency
Modernization
DEPARTMENT OF
r• PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
90
2027B LRIT HB10 Status Update
Projects in Motion
ComyrehimnNe Child Welfare Infomutlon Montana Systems for the Enforcement and She Directory of New Hire(SDNH) Request for Secure Data Connections for
System(CCWIS)NOV Service Recovery of Child Support IV&V Services HCSD Programs
• Statement of Work is complete Final reviews Planning activities are in motion In the procurement stage(s)of the project in HCSD is working with the vendor to confirm
Of procurement work products are in progress. Reviewing guidance from OCSS for collaboration with DOA SPSD. final scope,requirements,resources,and
• IV&V will be procured as a Contractor requirements and cadence of IV&V services. Will proceed with an RFP which is being drafted project kickoff timeline.
Engagement Proposal(CEP)in coordination IV&V will be procured as a CEP in coordination Target implementation is JUN—JUL 2026
with DOA SPSD- with DOA procurement. Target posting is JAN 2026.
• Post CEP in eMACS in JAN or FEB 2026 Procurement next steps are on hold awaiting
required guidance from OCSS.
Improving Timeliness of Public Benefit Public Benefits System Efficiency -
(SLTC)Legacy
Recipient Notifications Modernization System Replacements
• HCSD is working with the vendor to confirm HCSD needs to migrate its benefits system, Business requirements completed.
final scope,requirements,resources,and CHIMES,which supports Montana families Determine the procurement approach by
project kick-off timeline through programs such as SNAP,TANF, November 21,2025,with a final decision by
• Target implementation is APR 2026 Medicaid,and LIHEAP,to a modern and cost- January 2026.
effective technology platform. Awaiting a decision from SPSD to determine if
• HCSD is working with the vendor to confirm final NASPO procurement is an option.
scope,requirements,resources,and project
kick-off timeline.
DC pip TAILNi Or
PUBLIC HEALTH&
r• HUMAN SERVICES
BHSFG
Updates
Meghan Peel, Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities
DivisionAdministrator
CCBHC Implementation Updates
• DPHHS is on target for 10/1/2026 implementation date, pending
approval of Montana's demonstration grant application
• CCBHC Certification Process
o Anticipating 4 CCBHCs provisionally certified by 3/31 /2026
• PPS Rate Design
o Receipt of Cost Reports from 4 CCBHC providers
o Development of Individual PPS Rates by 2/1/2026
• CCBHC Crisis Services
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Acuity-Based Rates
Recommendation #1 : Refine and Reconfigure the Current 0208
Comprehensive Waiver Services Rates
• Goal to refine and reconfigure the current 0208 Comprehensive
Waiver Services rates by adjusting the rate methodology to better
align each individual's support needs with the resources they receive
• DPHHS conducted internal and external stakeholder engagement for
selection of evidence-based acuity assessment tool
• DPHHS will conduct a pilot with 500 assessments of individuals
enrolled in the 0208 waiver to inform rate development
• Development of rate structure with Guidehouse
P DEPARTMENT OF
I ,It,1 PUBLIC HEALTH&
-+7' HUMAN SERVICES
Acuity-Based Rates (cont.)
Recommendation #17: Redesign Rates for Youth Residential Services
• Align reimbursement structure with level of acuity to increase capacity of Montana's in-
state residential providers
o Smaller four-bed group homes; and
o Acuity enhancement payments
• DPHHS conducted internal and external stakeholder engagement September 2025-
December 2025
• DPHHS will issue a Request for Information to inform the possibility of a "No Eject, No
Reject" policy
• Development of rate structure with Guidehouse - expected completion date of 09/30/2026
• Anticipated implementation date of new rate structure early 2027
DEPARTMENT OF
..I, PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Data Collection Efforts for Key
Performance Indicators
Is DPHHS performing the right actions (process measures)
to achieve the desired results (outcome measures)?
• Process measures - What we do (directly controllable)
• Outcome measures - Is the intervention effective?
DEPARTMENT OF
..I, PUBLIC HEALTH&
.�k+�y HUMAN SERVICES
Data Collection Efforts for Key
Performance Indicators (cont.)
Process measures
• Is there provider and other stakeholder buy-in?
• Is there more mental health training for school
personnel?
• Is participant satisfaction improved?
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
='`.•x�.,' HUMAN SERVICES
Data Collection Efforts for Key
Performance Indicators (cont.)
Outcome measures — are BHSFG recommendations effective
with:
• Reducing Emergency Department visits
• Reducing out-of-state placements
• Increasing the numbers of individuals who remain in the
community
• Reducing time to access services, time on waitlist, and
time in high acuity service
• Reducing readmissions to facilities
DEPARTMENT OF
!.•�E.,. PUBLIC HEALTH&
"C HUMAN SERVICES
Olmstead Plan Quarterly
Update
Lindsey Carter, Senior and Long-Term Care Division Administrator
HUMAN SERVICES
Activities Since Last Update
• In Partnership with the Rural Institute, the project team
developed six priority goals and crafted objectives and activities
related to each goal, based on feedback from all stakeholders.
• The goals, objectives, and activities were reviewed and revised
based on feedback from DPHHS employees and leadership staff.
• The goals and objectives were presented to the Department of
Transportation and Department of Commerce leadership staff in
preparation for a public feedback period.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Public Feedback Period
The goals, objectives, and activities were made publicly available for
a 30-day feedback period on December 8th and can be found at:
httDS://www.umt.edu/rural-institute/partnership/oImstead-plan-
public-feedback.php fumt.edul
• A virtual town hall meeting is scheduled for December 19th.
• Collected comments will be analyzed for inclusion in the current
plan or for consideration in future plan iterations.
DEPARTMENT OF
( { •? PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Draft Olmstead Plan Goal and Objectives
• Implementing and maintaining the Olmstead Plan requires a
dedicated support structure and active, ongoing involvement
from stakeholders.
• To operate the Plan effectively and maintain its momentum
across all goals, we will need to ensure some dedicated
resources are directed at this import effort, including funding for
an Olmstead Coordinator. This Coordinator will ensure
consistent oversight and management of all Plan activities.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
�% HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #1
Promote rights, choice, and autonomy of people with disabilities
• Prevent and reduce institutionalization through data-informed strategies
that enhance access to community supports
o Improve data collection around reasons for institutionalization
o Establish standards for service and employment settings
• Expand access to choice in decision-making for people with disabilities
o Support expanded training for person-centered planning
o Expand education on supported decision making and alternatives to
guardianship
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #2
Increase collaborations and enhance state programs to expand choice
in housing and transportation for people with disabilities
• Improve interagency collaboration and system alignment within DPHHS and
across other state entities
o Commit to two inter-agency meetings with the Department of Transportation
o Commit an additional two meetings with the Department of Commerce every year
• Develop more inclusive, accessible housing and infrastructure for
individuals with disabilities and aging populations
o Expand role of transportation coordinator to include housing tasks
o Explore partnerships for incentivizing accessible units
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
� HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #2 (cont.)
Increase collaborations and enhance state programs to
expand choice in housing and transportation for people with
disabilities
• Strengthen and expand accessible transportation systems for
individuals with disabilities and aging populations
oUtilize transportation advisory councils to greater effect
oAnalyze current transportation data to better understand
barriers to use
oTrain providers for working with people with disabilities
DEPARTMENT OF
Ir; PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #3
Increase access to and choice of healthcare and mental health
services in community settings
• Improve workforce education and sustainability
o Expand provider education offerings and access to telehealth
o Explore expansion of loan repayment program
• Expand service delivery to improve access to care across rural and urban settings
o Increase access to telehealth and specialty care
o Explore options for assistive technology that will support direct care staff
• Reduce caregiver burden
o Enhance promotion of respite services
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #4
Improve creation and delivery of accessible information and resources
• Expand interdepartmental coordination to reduce information silos and improve service
accessibility and communication
o Integrate cross-DPHHS session at yearly Summit for collaboration
o Develop consistent case management requirements and expectations
• Improve accessibility and transparency of public-facing information
o Review current physical and digital materials for accessibility/plain language
o Create system to flag outdated or inaccessible content
• Build internal capacity for creating and maintaining accessible materials
o Develop consistent plain-language polices
o Include accessibility training in new-hire orientation
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #5
Support Competitive Integrated Employment while working toward becoming an Employment First
state
• Establish DPHHS as a model employer for people with disabilities
o Develop disability-led hiring guide and statewide education materials on disability employment
o Host interagency meeting yearly on value of disability employment
• Montana will become an Employment-First state
o Develop MOUs with partner agencies to foster collaboration
• Increase the number of disability-inclusive employers by engaging private businesses and
supporting sustainable relationships
o Educate and train private businesses on disability employment
o Identify annually 50 new businesses committed to disability employment initiatives
• Eliminate sub-minimum wage in Montana
DEPARTMENT OF
•_ ;�j PUBLIC HEALTH&
,.Ay HUMAN SERVICES
Goal #6
Improve benefits education, and transition planning services
• Improve infrastructure for accessible and widespread information
dissemination
o Establish person-centered benefit planning services within each 1915c
waiver
o Create a strengthened transitions system for people with disabilities at
all stages of life
• Expand benefits education and transition planning
o Partner for trainings on benefits education and independent living skills
o Expand membership to the Montana Secondary Transition Partnership
DEPARTMENT 01
PUBLIC HEALTH&
"_14 HUMANSERVICES
Olmstead Plan Next Steps
• Integrate public feedback into goals and objectives and finalize
accompanying draft narrative and summary.
• Complete quality assurance plan, including drafting indicators
and data strategies and identifying data sources.
• By the end of March, finalize the Olmstead report with an
accompanying accessible version, including dissemination and
monitoring plans.
DEPARTMENT 01
PUBLIC HEALTH&
-t: HUMAN SERVICES
Opioid Settlement Funds
Rebecca . - Camara, Medicaid
DPHH HUMAN SERVICES
Montana Opioid Abatement Trust
(MOAT)
• Purpose: Manages 70% of funds Montana receives from the
multi-state settlement with pharmaceutical companies related to
the opioid epidemic
• Funds are used to support opioid remediation efforts in Montana
• Allowable uses include expanding access to addiction treatment
and recovery services, supporting prevention and education
programs, and funding law enforcement and public safety
initiatives
• MOAT Advisory Committee
DEPARTMENT OF
} PUBLIC HEALTH&
y HUMAN SERVICES
Opioid Settlement Funds
• Approximately $6.1 million of opioid abatement funds distributed through
the MOAT
• Funding distributed across 61 approved applications
• Next MOAT Advisory Committee meeting: January 13, 2026
• State funding: 15% of funds Montana receives from the settlements are
managed by the state
o DOJ and DPHHS split these funds evenly
o DPHHS has received approx. $3.5 million to date
o Neither DOJ nor DPHHS have expended funds
o DPHHS does not have an appropriation for these funds
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
MOAT Allocation Per Region
July 2025-June 2026 July 2026-June 2027 July 2027•June 2028
Projected Grant $ 6,000,00000 $ 6,000,000.00 S 6,000,00000
Distribution Availability:
Allocation Avaiability Par Region Allocation% Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Abatement Recpon 1 6 2551612741% $ 375,30968 S 375,309.68 $ 375,30968
Abatement Region 2 5 5621614290% $ 333,729 69 $ 333,729.69 $ 333,72969
Abatement Region 3 3.7809796480% $ 226,858.78 $ 226.858 78 $ 226,858 78
Abatement Region 4 7 1181856516% S 427,091 14 $ 427,091 14 $ 427,091 14
Abatement Region 5 4 0141642096% $ 240,849.85 $ 240,849.85 S 240,849 85
Butle-Silver Bow 5 6101260434% $ 336,607 56 $ 336,607 56 $ 336.607 56
Cascade County/Great Falls 8 2570830264% S 495,424.98 $ 495,424 98 $ 495,424 98
Flathead County/Kalispell 104877218079% $ 629,263,31 $ 629,26331 $ 629,26331
Gallatin County/Bozeman 6 0367459224% $ 362,20476 $ 362204 76 $ 362,204 76
Lake County 3 6175099064% $ 217,050 59 $ 217.050 59 $ 217,05059
Lewis and Clark County/Helena 66687367376% $ 400,12420 $ 400,12420 S 400,12420
Missoula County/Missoula 12.4585392204% $ 747,512.35 $ 747,512 35 $ 747,512 35
Ravalli County 3 6906819270% S 221,440.92 $ 221,440 92 $ 221,440 92
Yellowstone County/Billings 164422031963% $ 986,532.19 $ 986,53219 $ 996,532.19
DEPARTMENT OF
• PUBLIC HEALTH&
• HUMAN SERVICES
Conclusion
DEPARTMENT OF
u PHH+- PUBLIC HEALTH&
HUMAN SERVICES
I
I� '� ` B
1 / ,�
0
i
6
1
,� f
r
a
G
A
t
1
O
t
S
Dear Council Member Naylor and Council President Canape,
I am writing this anonymously as a concerned citizen. I have been watching the issue of
the Forensic Mental Health Facility unfold with great interest. While I do care about this
community deeply, at this time, I am remaining somewhat neutral as to whether this
facility should be built at the proposed site off of Highway Ten, or anywhere else around
Laurel, and if it is indeed in the interest of Laurel to annex it, if proposed.
I do, however, have concerns about the reaction by the community, and how people
who have come forward have conducted themselves. To me, it was shameful and
embarrassing to witness the behavior of the residents of Laurel.
The city residents' concerns about the facility may be valid points for everyone to
consider moving forward. But to me, their conduct has been like a high school drama
being played out in the city council meetings and elsewhere (online) for the world to
witness. If cooler heads had prevailed and people had stuck to facts this could have
been dealt with in a civil manner.Are details and facts missed, being twisted to suit
hidden motives that go beyond mere security and safety concerns relating to this
facility? Has anyone asked if it is the city officials who did something wrong or someone
else dropped the ball?
I like that the community has come together and is supporting something they believe
in. We need open hearts AND reason. Yet I see angry community members who are
ready to lynch anyone who does not stand 100% with them on an issue. You have the
right to your views and opinions, but so does everyone who disagrees with you, without
feeling threatened of retaliation. I am not here defending anyone. I am here defending
EVERYONE. All of you deserve to be heard, but being so clouded with emotion without
understanding all the facts has made you (the community members) appear foolish.
Freedom of speech is not just a freedom. It also comes decorated with responsibilities,
as without responsibility, freedom turns people into animals. The higher the freedom, the
higher the responsibility to use that freedom fairly, ethically and for the good of all.
Whose good are you truly concerned with? It is not an either/or, but an "AND" situation.
Polar (us vs. them) mentality is one of the biggest reasons for the ills in the world.
Could this whole thing have been handled differently? Maybe, but that does not mean
what is happening in the community would not still be happening. My understanding
was that the job of an elected position is to serve and uphold the interests of those that
elect it and to help them, and that of an appointed official is to provide opportunities and
options for the elected officials to choose what is best for their constituents. Accusing
them of wrongdoing without factual proof tells little about them, and more about you.
Maybe, the Mayor and the CAO were merely trying to explore-opportunities and options
for people to choose. How could they explore without going into it? You still do have the
final say in this regardless on the annexing.
But please give the city officials some grace and time, for Pete's sake. If they are guilty
and have done wrong, it will come out guaranteed, and we all will see it. And then you
can beat your chests. But if they have not done anything wrong and had acted in the
best interest of the city, how will you feel about yourselves?
I have watched many of these city council sessions and have seen the drama some of
the people have created. I do not know the Mayor or the CAO personally, but vilifying
them the way you have, accusations of incompetence and lying, and exaggerating and
twisting facts into what they may not be, because it suits a certain narrative and serves
to accomplish some other goals will only result in you making a mockery of not only
yourselves, but of Laurel as a whole. You are not only the citizens of Laurel but also of
Montana. It is selfish, narcissistic, and unethical of those who say, "We are all for having
this facility, but not in my backyard". If you read the documents from the state and its
various departments carefully and make sense of the sequence of events, you will likely
view things differently and maybe have a better understanding. There is more than one
side to this whole fiasco. Are we willing to see the other perspective or are we too blind
and stubborn to see it any other way? You all are better than this, Laurel.
From my perspective, there are only two options for the location of building this facility
from the state's perspective and from the standpoint of needing it:
1. Middle of nowhere, at a location where the resources needed to run this facility
effectively and efficiently (utilities, internet, staffing, housing, environment, etc..) will
either be scarce/missing or extremely expensive to provide. We will end up having
another Warm Springs on our hands, and we all will still pay for it
2. At a location with the chance of obtaining and having what it takes to make the
facility successful, and that will invariably end up being in someone's backyard anyway
---It has been argued that it should be where it is wanted, but you may want to look into -
that a little deeper. Do those who want it have the capability to provide what this facility
needs? As citizens of this state, do we want to set this new facility up for failure or
success? Please ask yourselves that question. For me, I remain open to it, around
Laurel or elsewhere, as long as it does what it is supposed to do, how it is supposed to.
I get that there is always a certain risk in dealing with anything new, especially
something as controversial as a forensic mental health facility (again, not a jail/prison).
Emotions can run high, but then unchecked emotions turn one's responses into
becoming more antagonistic. Why is our first reaction to something unfamiliar and new
that of fear with an expectation of the worst? Maybe we need to ask ourselves that
question. Instead of seeking and looking for the good in something and also balancing it
with the risks, weighing all the options, seeking input from ALL stakeholders (not just
Laurel), all you are doing is weakening yourselves through your own fears and making a
spectacle of our city.
Who has told us that this is a jail/prison? I have searchedlafrld searched and those two
words do not appear anywhere in an official document. So, is that a fact or an opinion?
We need to be asking the right questions and when we point a finger at someone else,
we have our other three pointing back at us as well.
Please have patience, understand the process, stop jumping to conclusions without all
the facts, do not twist facts and their meanings to suit an agenda. By all means ask
questions, challenge your officials and provide a counterpoint to every point that may be
made if you so choose, and have the council vote NO if that's the final answer, but
please do it in a way that encourages a healthy environment, and allows Laurel to grow
as a community...with or without a forensic mental health facility. You all will still have to
live with each other, whether this facility happens or not. Do not lose dignity. Stay
human. You may still have it your way in the end, and I hope for your sake you do, but
also pray that if it does go your way, it does not ruin innocent lives along the way.
A final point on the Mayor and CAO: One could argue that it feels more like a campaign
to expel the Mayor and the CAO by vilifying them, with the Forensic Mental Health
=Facility being used as a crutch to lean on. That seems not only unfair-but also unjust.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?Are we now starting with guilt and
expecting people to prove their innocence?
People's personal bias and negative feelings towards the Mayor and CAO are tainting
the community's mood. I am pointing that out because it has come up repeatedly in
these sessions, almost to the point where it seems that people think every bad thing
that happens in Laurel is because of these two (Mayor and the CAO. Leave your
negative egos at home.
Think about it, please.
A concerned citizen.
Brittney Harakal
From: Michele Braukmann <michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:33 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: Fw: Proposed site in Laurel
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Attorney at Law
Meridian Law, PLLC
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
michele@meridianlawmt.com
www.meridianlawmt.com
From:Amber Zahn <zahn.amber@myyahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:06:24 AM
To: michele@meridianlawmt.com <michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Subject: Proposed site in Laurel
The Montana Environmental Policy Act states that:
"It is the continuing responsibility of the state of Montana to use all practicable means...to create and
maintain conditions under which people can exist in productive harmony with their environment."
(MCA 75-1-102)
MEPA requires state agencies to take a "hard look" at how major actions affect the human environment,
including social, economic, and public health conditions.
MEPA further requires agencies to:
"Consider the environmental consequences of their actions before resources are committed."
(MCA 75-1-201)
To date, there has been no publicly available, site-specific Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement evaluating impacts of this location on nearby homes, schools, traffic, infrastructure,
emergency response, and public safety.
MEPA also requires agencies to study alternatives.The statute directs agencies to:
"Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action."
(MCA 75-1-201(2)(c))
Selecting a site next to residential neighborhoods and schools without first comparing less harmful
locations is a pre-commitment that violates MEPA's core purpose.
MEPA also prohibits agencies from narrowing projects to avoid review. Connected actions and
foreseeable secondary impacts must be considered together.
Finally, MEPA requires meaningful public involvement. The law emphasizes:
"Public participation in the decision-making process is essential."
(MCA 75-1-102)
Public participation after site selection or negotiations have already occurred is not meaningful.
1
This is not about being for or against a particular program.
It is about whether the government follows the law before committing to a course of action.
Amber Zahn
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
2
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 2A
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 6:30 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Cc: Civil Attorney; City Mayor
Subject: FW: Mental Health Facility - Concerns
Just got this one
Jessica Banks
Ward 2A City Council Member
Mobile:406-690-7181
Email: ward2a@laurel.mt.gov
P.O. Box 10
Laurel, MT 59044
Home Page I Laurel MT(cityoflaurelmontana.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: skeebaml@gmail.com <skeebaml@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 10, 2026 6:18 PM
To: Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Mental Health Facility-Concerns
Mrs. Banks,
I'm writing you today regarding the proposal for the mental health facility in our town. I'm a young man, 24,with a
toddler, and my family has been in Laurel for a very long time.The proposed MH facility raises concerns for not only me
but my little boy, and considering the fact that Laurel is already an extremely unattractive town to young people,this
does not inspire me to stay and raise my son here. I will not be putting my son in a school system that brings him within
close proximity to a facility such as this, and with the extraordinary amount of money recently invested in our schools I
find this extremely disappointing. Our tax burden,which is already significant enough (as we have already approved
millions of dollars in improvements over the years), will almost certainly not get lighter. Our roads,which are in
shockingly poor state,are apparently still to be left neglected and rotting while our attention is being focused on a
building that is being sternly rejected by the vast majority of those who live and work here. I have never voted in local
elections, but it will be expected that whoever supports this will see me voting against them almost assuredly. For those
who are unelected and supporting this,they do not represent the best interests of this town or its future and do not
deserve to use their position to replace my voice as a citizen and taxpayer.This facility is a disappointment, not only for
our local government, but also for the systems that have robbed the people of their voice in the matter. I urge you to
reconsider the proposal, our town is not meant for this.
Thank you,
Samuel Little
1
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 6:14 AM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw: Interesting
From: Matt<gilgm12@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 10, 2026 8:38 PM
To:Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Interesting
That"fairness to the mayor" came out of your mouth tonight,when fairness to his constituents clearly
wasn't on his mind when driving forward a prison complex next to my daughter's elementary school.
Matt Gilg
mattgilg.dev
Cell: 860.771.3511
1
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 213
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 11:10 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Subject:Vote NO on Annexation - Forensic Mental Health Facility
Hey there.
The letters keep coming.......
Thank you,
Brent
From: katrina welch<welch.katrina@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 8:46 AM
To:Ward 213<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject:Subject: Vote NO on Annexation - Forensic Mental Health Facility
Dear Brent Edgmond,
I am a resident of Laurel at 915 Casa Linda Cir. , and I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposed
annexation for the forensic mental health facility.
This 32-bed facility would house justice-system involved individuals just 459 yards from West
Elementary School. Our community deserves transparency about how this location was selected and
what security measures will protect our children and neighborhoods.
Key concerns:
- No tax revenue to Laurel despite increased burden on emergency services
- Proximity to schools and residential areas
- Lack of public input in the decision-making process
- Inadequate information about security and safety protocols
The state cannot proceed without City Council approval of annexation. I urge you to vote NO and
demand full transparency from city leadership about this process.
Sincerely,
Katrina Welch
915 Casa Linda Cir.
1
• • I 1
•
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed annexation related to the development of a mental health prison
facility within or adjacent to our city.
While I recognize the importance of addressing mental health needs and the responsibility of governments to provide appropriate
treatment and secure facilities, I have serious concerns about whether this annexation is in the best interest of our community.The
long-term impacts on public safety,city resources,infrastructure,property values,and community character have not been
adequately addressed or transparently communicated to residents.
Of particular concern is the strain this annexation could place on our existing water and sewer infrastructure.A facility of this size
and intensity would require substantial,continuous water usage and wastewater capacity. It remains unclear whether current
systems can accommodate this demand without costly upgrades,service disruptions,or long-term financial burdens placed on city
residents.Any necessary expansions to water or sewer infrastructure could significantly impact municipal budgets and taxpayers.
I am also deeply concerned about the proposed facility's close proximity to an elementary school. Locating a correctional mental
health facility near a school raises serious safety,security,and community appropriateness concerns.These concerns are not
merely hypothetical;the local school board has publicly opposed the placement of this facility, underscoring the seriousness of the
issue and the need for elected bodies to take that opposition into account. Decisions affecting student safety and the educational
environment should be made with the utmost caution and broad consensus.
Additionally,annexation would create ongoing operational obligations for the city, including increased demands on law
enforcement,emergency services,and municipal infrastructure.There has been insufficient clarity regarding how these
responsibilities would be funded or whether enforceable long-term commitments from state or partner agencies exist.
Equally troubling is the lack of meaningful community engagement in this process.A decision of this magnitude warrants robust
public involvement,independent impact studies—including utilities,traffic,and safety analyses—and a transparent evaluation of
alternative locations or approaches that would not require annexation.
Mental health care is a critical public responsibility, but solutions must be thoughtfully planned,appropriately located,and
developed in a way that prioritizes student safety,fiscal responsibility,and community well-being. I urge the Council to reject this
annexation proposal and to ensure that any future consideration of such a facility involves comprehensive analysis and genuine
public input.
Thank you for your time,service,and consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Victoria Kirby
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 3A
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 6:17 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Mental health facility
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Crowl<mlcrowl66@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 3:54 PM
To: Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Mental health facility
I just want to tell you I do not support the mental health facility being built in Laurel. I believe there is a need for such
facilities just not in our town. What's best is to wait for a better opportunity to come to Laurel and use that property for
a business that would benefit Laurel.
Mike Crowl
Sent from my iPad
1
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 8:20 PM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw: Sara Naylor,Tom Canape,Jessica Banks, Brent Edgmond, Iry Wilkey, Casey Wheeler,
Jodi McKay, Richard Klose
From: Bette Brester<bettebl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 7:36 PM
To:Ward 1A<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 413<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject:Sara Naylor,Tom Canape,Jessica Banks, Brent Edgmond, Iry Wilkey, Casey Wheeler,Jodi McKay, Richard Klose
My name is Bette Brester and I live at 412 4th Ave. in Laurel. I have lived, worked and raised a family in Laurel
for over 70 years.
Thank you for your willing to serve on the council and donate your time.
The site for a new Mental facility has no business being built within 500 yds of an elementary school, Christian
pre-school, and Christian private school. I am
sure, each and every one of you has children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews etc. Are you not concerned for
their safety? Do any of you know of a family that has their
residence nearby that will be forced to endure the extra traffic, huge yard lights not to mention the high
security fence? Would you like to look at that out your window?
What will that do to their property values? Do you care.......because I do.
We pay some of the highest water bills in the State with more raises to come. Our streets are
deplorable. Why? Because there just isn't any money available. And yet,
they (the Mayor and CAO) are willing to give up the taxes that we now receive on that property. Are they
going to make up those funds out of their personal accounts?
This will also place an additional burden on our Fire Dept, Police Dept and Ambulance Service. All of these
services are already lacking in funding and again we will not receive
the taxes from that land.
Does anybody know what the State will do with the extra 104 acres? Do you think we have the right to
know? To me that is a scary thought with the Women's prison overcrowded,
500 Montana prisoners being held at out of state institutions, Warm Springs has lost its accreditation and
Galen is failing. Hmmmm What's next?
Each and every one of you should be insulted by the way you have been kept in the dark and lied to as well as
all of us. Perhaps they feel that the "good ole boy" system
will come through and no one will object. A NO VOTE is what 's best for Laurel.
PLEASE
Bette Brester
Brittney Harakal
From: City Mayor
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2026 9:49 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: Fw: Laurel Cared
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Bette Brester<bettebl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 6:10:55 PM
To:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Kurt Markegard <kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Laurel Cared
I am addressing this to both of you as I truly feel that you both have done a huge WRONG to the people of
Laurel.
My name is Bette Brester. My address is 412 4h Ave in Laurel. I have lived, worked, and raised a family in
Laurel for over 70 years and feel that I have a
right to want answers to the following questions.
Why do you want this site so close to schools and residential properties?
Why has the City Council and residents of Laurel been left in the dark?
How are you replacing the tax revenue that we will be losing from that land? ( When ever the issue of horrible
streets come up the standard answer is there is NO MONEY available.)
Horrendous water bills because we have to update the antiquated system but then proceed to add more and
more users. Are they paying their fair share? Where is the money going?
Why has the State lost accreditation at Warm Springs? Lack of funds? Lack of employees?
What do they plan on building there next with the extra 104 acres they are purchasing? If you say you don't
know that is a dereliction of duty!
As Leaders for the City of Laurel, you are to have the best interests of Laurel in mind at ALL times.
It is YOUR duty to stop this circus NOW or resign your positions.
GET US OUT OF THIS MESS NOW!
Bette Brester
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2026 5:39 PM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw: Formal Objection to Proposed Forensic Health Facility Location
From:Ashley Kober<ashleyjkober@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 14, 2026 5:09 PM
To: lee.deming@leg.mt.org<lee.deming@leg.mt.org>;vince.ricci@leg.mt.org<vince.ricci@leg.mt.org>;Ward 1A
<wardla@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>;Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Proposed Forensic Health Facility Location
To Whom It May Concern
We are writing to formally object to the proposed forensic health facility.
This site is in close proximity to schools and established residential neighborhoods. Placing a forensic
facility near schools is inappropriate and raises serious safety and quality-of-life concerns for families.
Our community is primarily residential and family-centered, and this type of development is
incompatible with the character and expectations of our town.
Equally concerning is the lack of meaningful community notification and engagement. Many residents
were unaware of this proposal until it was already well underway.A project of this scale and sensitivity
should never move forward without transparent communication and genuine public input from the
outset.
I strongly urge you to halt further progress on this location, conduct proper community outreach, and
identify a more appropriate site that does not place schools and family neighborhoods at risk.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ashley and Mark Kober
i
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 4:12 PM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw: Proposed Forensic Mental Health Facility
From: Deming, Lee<Lee.Deming@legmt.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:54 PM
To: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 16<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 213<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 313
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 413<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Proposed Forensic Mental Health Facility
Mayor Waggoner and City Council Members,
Senator Ricci and I wish to inform you that we do not support the location of the Forensic Mental Health
facility in or near Laurel.
Some of the reasons for this lack of support is the unresolved safety issue,the lack of communication by
the State with the City of Laurel, and the fact that opponents-our constituents-will not support a facility
of this type in or near Laurel.
Senator Ricci and I have communicated our lack of support to the Director of the Board of Investments
and he has assured us that he will pass along our sentiments to other State officials who need to hear it.
Thankyou.
Emails to and from legislators involving legislative business may be subject to public disclosure under
the Rigflt t2KnQvy provision of the Montana Constitution and Title_2 ChapterS,_part 10,�LC_A. This may
include the sender, recipient, content, and attachments.
1
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 2A
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 7:35 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Cc: City Mayor; Civil Attorney
Subject: FW: Subject: Vote NO on Annexation - Forensic Mental Health Facility
Here is another one
Jessica Banks
Ward 2A City Council Member
LL obile: 406-690-7181
Email: ward2a�laurel.mt.gov
PO Box 10
Laurel MT 59044
�G�ladHome Page I Laurel MT cit oflaurelmontana.com
From: katrina welch<welch.katrina@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 8:45 AM
To:Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject:Subject: Vote NO on Annexation - Forensic Mental Health Facility
Dear Jessica Banks,
I am a resident of Laurel at 915 Casa Linda Cir. , and I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposed
annexation for the forensic mental health facility.
This 32-bed facility would house justice-system involved individuals just 459 yards from West
Elementary School. Our community deserves transparency about how this location was selected and
what security measures will protect our children and neighborhoods.
Key concerns:
- No tax revenue to Laurel despite increased burden on emergency services
- Proximity to schools and residential areas
- Lack of public input in the decision-making process
- Inadequate information about security and safety protocols
The state cannot proceed without City Council approval of annexation. I urge you to vote NO and
demand full transparency from city leadership about this process.
Sincerely,
Katrina Welch
915 Casa Linda Cir.
2
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:25 AM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw:Tom please help us!
From:Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:21 AM
To: Melissa Mogan<moganmelissa@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Tom please help us!
Dear Milissa, and Drew Mogan.
I have read your concerns and your personal feelings.
At this time I am not able to respond, to your statement's.
I have sent your email to the appropriate people so it will be
read in at council.Thank you. It was nice to hear from you and Drew
Your friend and president of city council ward 1 B Tom Canape.
From: Melissa Mogan<moganmelissa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 9:07 AM
To:Ward 1B<wardlb@ laurel.mt.gov>
Subject:Tom please help us!
Dear Tom Canape,
I am a citizen of Laurel, MT.
I wish to express my concern with regard to the possibility of having a mental health detention facility located in our
town. I am not in favor of it. I am deeply concerned with the location, which is in close proximity to one of our
elementary schools. I am also very concerned about the potential for increased taxes, and the strain this facility will
place on our town's infrastructure. Our per capita tax burden is already substantial for such a small town. We do not
need or wish to shoulder additional costs that will only continue to increase over time.
I also find it deeply concerning that the entire process has been so "back room", for lack of a better term. Why was it
initiated without any input from the citizens of this town? It casts a very ugly shadow on our city government,
deserved or not. The whole thing reeks of dishonesty and fraud. Given the current climate in which we find
ourselves as a nation, with rampant fraud being uncovered at every turn, I find it not only disheartening, but
shocking, that our city employees (both elected and hired)would engage in something like this. We are tired of
being financially pinched by our government officials and tired of being taken advantage of.
I encourage you to stand up for the citizens of this town, and fight to deny the placement of this facility in Laurel. I
appreciate you taking time to read this and please help Laurel fight this inappropriate placement of this facility!
1
Thank you,
Very concerned citizen
Melissa Mogan (Drew Mogan)
Sent from my Phone
2
Brittney Harakal
From: michele@meridianlawmt.com
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:28 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Forensic Mental Health Facility
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Attorney at Law
Meridian Law, PLLC
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
michele@meridianlawmt.com
www.meridianlawmt.com
From: Rachel Lesnik<rlesnik2010@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:13 PM
To: michele@meridianlawmt.com
Subject: Forensic Mental Health Facility
Dear Ms. Braukmann:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the placement of the forensic mental health facility in the
proposed location off of Highway 12.
My family and I reside on W 9th St, directly north of this proposed forensic mental health prison. Having a
prison facility for mentally ill criminals this close to where our family lives is deeply disturbing, especially since
we have children in the home. In addition, I am also a music teacher and frequently have families with children
of all ages coming to my home for music lessons. Many of these families come from outside the Laurel area
and often take advantage of the shops and grocery stores while they are here, thus supporting our local
economy. I am concerned that having this prison facility with mentally ill criminals located so close to my
home could negatively impact my ability to offer music lessons out of my home. It is not uncommon for
siblings of my students to play outside in the front yard while their sibling is having their music lesson. Families
come to my home because they feel safe. They know their children can play in my yard without concern for
safety or supervision. All of this will change if this prison is built in the proposed location.
While this facility will have solid security measures in place to prevent criminals from escaping, I have yet to
read about any safety protocols for prisoners that are released directly from this facility into our community. If
they do not have any friends or family to pick them up upon release, they will wander around our community
on foot. This alone is alarming given the proximity of this forensic mental health prison to residential areas and
the elementary school. Up until now, Laurel has been a safe feeling community with a very low to non-existent
homeless population. Over time,the number of prisoners released directly from this facility into our
community could turn this family-friendly town into a place where normal law-abiding citizens have to always
1
be on guard to ensure safety. If this mental health prison is allowed here,there is a strong probability that it
will become all that and more.
Other concerns include the impact this forensic mental health facility will have on the property value of the
residents living in and around the proposed location. If this prison facility for the mentally ill is built in the
proposed Laurel location, the ability of the families who own homes in the surrounding neighborhoods to sell
and relocate to a safer neighborhood becomes very limited as property values will be reduced while prices
outside the affected area will remain inflated. It will be more difficult for them to maintain the same standard
of living as their homes will be worth less than they are today.
The need to address the mental health and wellbeing of these criminals has never been greater. Montana
does need a forensic mental health facility that focuses on these mentally ill criminals, but it needs to be
placed in an area not surrounded by residential homes, schools, and small businesses who thrive on the small-
town, family friendly atmosphere of Laurel. I respectfully urge you and the City Council to stand against any
and all proposed annexation proposals for this site and to say no to this forensic mental health facility in our
community. I further urge you and the City Council to advocate for those communities who went through the
application process for this prison, communities who have expressed a strong interest in having it reside there.
Laurel residents do not want it.
I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter and trust that you will act in the best interests of our
residents and in accordance with what the residents of Laurel want. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Lesnik
2
Peggy Pollock
1703 Paynes Place
Laurel, MT 59044
February 11, 2026
Dear City Council Member,
I am writing to respectfully but firmly express my opposition to annexation of the proposed forensic
mental health facility in my neighborhood. I appreciate the complexity of your role and the weight of
the decisions before you, and I offer these comments with both compassion and deep concern for
the long-term impact on our community.
My first concern centers on homeownership and property values. For many of us, our homes are not
simply buildings. They represent years of sacrifice, careful financial planning, pride, and personal
investment. The American Dream has long been rooted in the idea that if you work hard, invest
wisely, and care for your property, your home will grow in value and provide stability and legacy for
your family. My home sits essentially a stone's throw from the proposed site. A facility of this nature
carries unavoidable stigma and perception concerns that historically depress nearby property
values. Even the perception of risk, regardless of operational safeguards, can significantly impact
marketability and resole value. When property values are diminished through no fault of the
homeowner, it erodes not only financial security but also the promise that hard work and responsible
ownership will be rewarded. For many families, home equity is their primary asset and their children's
future inheritance. That deserves careful protection.
My second concern relates to workforce recruitment and retention, specifically in education. As the
Human Resources Director for Laurel Public Schools, I can tell you firsthand that filling open positions in
schools is already increasingly difficult. Across the country, districts are competing for a shrinking pool
of qualified educators. Laurel is no different. Recruitment today is not passive. We must actively "sell"
our communities, our schools, and our quality of life to attract candidates. Location matters.
Community perception matters. Safety perception matters. Right or wrong, a forensic mental health
facility carries fear and stigma in the minds of many applicants. When candidates compare multiple
job offers, proximity to a facility associated with criminal mental health confinement is unlikely to be
viewed as a benefit. It becomes another barrier in an already uphill recruitment environment.
This has real consequences. When positions remain unfilled, students lose access to consistent, high-
quality instruction and support. Remaining staff experience burnout. Programs shrink. Services suffer.
We must ask difficult but necessary questions: Who will teach the children who remain here? Who will
protect and support our schools if staffing shortages worsen? Decisions about facility placement do
not occur in isolation. They ripple outward into education, public service, and community stability.
I also encourage careful consideration of the economic assumptions surrounding this proposal. While
such facilities are sometimes presented as job creators, specialized facilities often draw experienced
staff from outside the immediate area or require credentials that do not match the existing
workforce. Meanwhile, if community perception shifts negatively, we risk making current hard-to-fill
positions across multiple sectors even more difficult to staff. We must weigh projected job gains
against potential workforce losses and recruitment barriers already affecting our town.
I want to be clear: this letter is not written out of disregard for mental health needs or the importance
of treatment and secure care. These services are necessary and valuable. But facility need alone
should not determine facility placement. Again, location matters, community impact matters and
long-term consequences matter.
I ask you to consider the broader picture such as housing stability, family investment, educator
recruitment, student support and safety, and the long-term vitality of our community before moving
forward with the potential annexation of this location. There are bigger concerns at stake here that
extend well beyond the boundaries of the proposed site.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Peggy Pollock
1703 Paynes Place
Laurel, MT 59044
406-281-3700
Brittney Harakal
From: Civil Attorney
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:41 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Laurel, MT I Forensic Mental Health Facility
Attachments: Letter in Opposition to the Forensic Mental Health Facility.pdf
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Civil City Attorney
City of Laurel
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
civilattornev@laurel.mt.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This transmission may contain information which is privileged, confidential,and protected by
the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. If you are not the addressee,or you are not authorized to disclose
the contents herein, please note that any disclosure,copying,distribution,or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify me immediately.
From: Kalli Wescott<kalliwescott@protonmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 1:33 PM
To:governor@mt.gov; kristen.juras@mt.gov; hannah.slusser@mt.gov; City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Kurt
Markegard <kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1A<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>;
commission@yellowstonecountymt.gov; BOI.ED@mt.gov; DVilla@mt.gov; BOI.Loans@mt.gov; BOI.InterCap@mt.gov;
BOI.Records@mt.gov; Charles.Brerton@mt.gov; Kim.Aiken@mt.gov;JEBelt@mt.gov; Civil Attorney
<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Laurel, MT I Forensic Mental Health Facility
Monday, February 16th, 2026
RE: Forensic Mental Health Facility
This letter is being emailed to: Governor Greg Gianforte, Mayor Dave Waggoner, CAO Kurt
Markegard, BOI Members, DPHHS Members, Laurel City Council, Laurel City Attorney,
Yellowstone County Commissioners
To All Whom It Concerns,
My name is Kalli Wescott. I offer the following perspective through several lenses. I am a Real
Estate Broker and a Board of Director for the Montana Association of Realtors, with my
license held at A Haus Of Realty in Laurel, Montana. I was raised in a first responder family. I
1
am a mother to two elementary-aged children. I am a wife; to a commercial electrician. I
am a property owner in Yellowstone County with a Laurel address.
I wholeheartedly support the state's goal of improving high-quality mental health services
and public health infrastructure, as outlined on the HB5 website. Having a family member
who is navigating the intersection of incarceration and mental health treatment, I deeply
understand the profound need for these specific services. Most Montanans agree this need
is critical. However, a facility can be necessary in theory while being entirely inappropriate in
it's proposed location. I am submitting this letter to publicly announce my opposition to this
Forensic Mental Health Facility, funded by H135, being built in the town of Laurel, Montana.
My husband and I moved to Montana in 2015, and intentionally to Laurel in 2023. 1 write this
as a mother who wants her children to feel safe in their hometown, as a professional who
knows the economic risks, and as a Montanan who knows we can find a better way to serve
the vulnerable without dismantling a thriving community. Please, take the time to be
intentional and find a site that helps a community grow rather than causing one to crumble.
We refuse to give up on this wonderful community, and thankfully I know the residents of
Laurel are stronger than our State and City leadership officials realize because we are going
to fight this... because we know it is wrong for the town of Laurel in many ways and we know
the community will fight for what is right and the community will not stop.
The State's HB5 website explicitly promises that "Stakeholder input and local engagement
are priorities" and that agencies will "work collaboratively with communities to ensure
informed planning and responsible site selection."
In Laurel, this process has failed. There was zero local engagement or procedural proposal to
the City Council prior to our CAO, Kurt Markegard, offering our community to the State. By
bypassing the City Council and the public, the Mayor and CAO have moved outside the
structured, transparent process required for a project of this magnitude. Laurel is not a
"responsible site selection" when the selection itself was made in the dark. I urge the State of
Montana, DPHHS, BOI, and the City of Laurel to realize the same and work to pivot this
decision. Members of DPHHS and BOI, please take the time and be intentional about finding
an area to put the Forensic Mental Health Facility that will HELP a Montana community, not
crumble the community and put children in danger.
This facility is not right for the town of Laurel, Montana regardless of site location. It should go
without saying that this facility should not be within 1 mile of a public or private school or
child care location. Laurel's infrastructure as it currently stands does not support this type of
facility, nor does our growth plan. For a facility like this, there needs to be careful and
intentional thought put into this project, specifically when it comes to where to place it within
the eastern part of the state. This careful and intentional planning would ensure it does not
crumble whichever community it enters. There is absolutely a need for this facility in Eastern
Montana, but the State will cause more problems to our State's mental health system if they
put this facility in a town that cannot serve it. Laurel's current infrastructure and growth plan
cannot sustain a forensic facility.
Public Safety: Our City struggles to fund basic needs; our residents have had to
fundraise for police vests and ambulances. We rely on a volunteer fire department.
Adding a forensic facility would necessitate a transition to full-time fire, EMT, and
increased police presence—costs Laurel cannot afford.
2
• Schools: We have recently invested in new school facilities. Placing a forensic facility
within proximity to schools and childcare—regardless of the specific site—contradicts
the growth goals of our residents.
• Economic Impact: While such projects bring jobs, these are often filled by temporary
"locum" staff or travel nurses who do not become long-term property owners or
taxpayers.
Laurel cannot afford this.
There was a letter read into record last week on February 1 Oth, 2026 from Senator John Esp
out of Big Timber, MT. He claimed that the Yellowstone County Detention Facility in
downtown Billings did not affect the area around it and did not prevent the community from
growing. This could not be further from the truth. As a Real Estate Broker, I must correct the
narrative that "this facility will not impact property values."
We need only look at the Yellowstone County Detention Facility in downtown Billings for a
clear comparison:
Metric Area Near Billings Detention Facility (1- Billings Average (Excluding
mile radius) Detention Area)
Average Sold $253,323 $426,303
Price
In Billings, home values near the facility are nearly 50% lower than the city average.
Considering the City of Billings covers 45 square miles while Laurel covers only 2.6 square
miles, a facility in Laurel would impact nearly our entire residential footprint. To suggest this
won't affect our community's wealth and stability is not just inaccurate—it is professionally
negligent.
As the wife of a commercial electrician, who never had to worry about his job while he was
wiring the new Laurel Intermediate School, and who has also completed numerous Davis-
Bacon jobs in our region that supported our young family. Facilities and building jobs like this
support my family, and many others in the Laurel community. And collectively, I know we are
all against this Forensic Mental Health Facility regardless of the temporary comforts it could
provide to our families.
Governor Gianforte stated he would not place this facility in a community that did not want it.
To the Governor: I voted for you believing you would protect the heart of Montana's small
towns. I ask you now to honor that commitment and reverse this decision before it
fundamentally destabilizes Laurel. And going forward, I ask that you take great care and
intention in locating a site for this facility that truly supports it.
As a proud member of the Laurel community, I want to express how sad and disappointed I
have been at our last two City Council meetings. For many reasons, mainly because I never
thought our Laurel leadership officials would force it's community to defend themselves, their
businesses, or their families like this, but here we are. For my first time seeing our Mayor, Dave
Waggoner, in person, and watching the way he conducted himself to our City Attorney and
seemingly careless when listening to his constituents profess their concerns. For our CAO, Kurt
Markegard, to ramble on in defensive stories when asked simple questions all to avoid giving
a true, honest answer. All of that to say... To Mayor Dave Waggoner and CAO Kurt
Markegard: I offer an olive branch. It is difficult to admit a mistake, but it is not too late to
3
stand with your constituents. Put the egos down, put the defenses down. I ask you to join us
in telling the State, DPHHS, and the BOI that our community has spoken. We will support you
in the legal or political challenges that may follow if you choose to prioritize the people of
Laurel over this project. Let's all move forward in good faith, with honesty, and integrity and
do this together. It is not too late to stand with your community, and to do what is right.
To all of Laurel's City Council members, please hear me when I plead of you to vote no on
any measure that facilitates this project in Laurel, MT. This facility inevitably comes with other
businesses and programs to support it, like sober homes, methadone clinics, etc. This facility
does not start and end with it's concrete wall boundaries or razor wire high fencing or it's
(I'm sure soon to be advertised) state of the art security systems. This facility will change
Laurel forever, and have all of us questioning whether or not we can continue to call it
home. To all of Laurel's City Council members, please use your vote to be our voice. We
need you now more than ever. We value you.
For all who this letter was directed to and sent via email to; please do what is right, do
whatever you can to reverse this decision. Then, take the time to be intentional about where
you place this facility... you only get one chance at this. Thank you all for taking the time to
read my opposition to the Forensic Mental Health Facility being built Laurel, MT.
Kalli Wescott
Laurel Property Owner & Real Estate Broker
kalliwescott'�protonmail.corn I Cell: 406.850.7426
REAL ESTATE BROKER I REALTOR'
A HAUS OF REALTY, INC.
406.850.7426
o kalliwescott@protonmail.com
ahausofrealty.com
20 Montana Ave.,Laurel,MT 59044
.• �LJ
4
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:26 PM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw: Opposition to the proposed Forensic Mental Health Facility
From: Darby Gerondale<darbygl@charter.net>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:18 PM
To: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>; Kurt
Markegard <kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>; michele@meridianlawmt.com <michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Subject:Opposition to the proposed Forensic Mental Health Facility
Darby Gerondale
2633 Meadow Dr.
Laurel, MT 59044
Dear City Leadership and City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Laurel to formally express my opposition to the proposed
Forensic Mental Health Facility at its currently planned location.
While mental health services are critically important, it has been explained that this facility will operate
as a forensic mental hospital—not a public mental health resource, but a secure institution serving
individuals involved in the criminaljustice system. This distinction is significant and was not clearly or
transparently communicated to the public or, reportedly, to all members of the City Council. Residents
deserve full and accurate information about the nature, purpose, and operational realities of a facility of
this kind before any decisions are made.
The proximity of the proposed site to schools and established residential neighborhoods raises serious
safety and quality-of-life concerns. Families deserve clear, detailed explanations regarding security
protocols, containment measures, emergency response procedures, and how potential incidents would
be handled. These questions should be thoroughly addressed—and publicly discussed—prior to moving
forward with this proposal.
As previously discussed, the lack of transparency from city leadership throughout this process is
concerning. Multiple requests for communications with the State of Montana—including
correspondence involving the city attorney, mayor, and Chief Administrative Officer—have had very
limited, to no response.
The sale of this property to the state will also reduce Laurel's tax base at a time when our city is already
struggling to fund basic infrastructure.We are facing well-documented challenges with our water
system, roads, schools, and fire/EMS services. Removing taxable property will further limit our city's
ability to address these critical needs. In addition to loss of tax revenue, Laurel would be expected to
1
absorb future or indirect costs associated with its operation.Any municipal services provided—including
emergency response, utilities, infrastructure support, or administrative services—would be at the city's
own expense. This expectation raises serious concerns about the long-term financial burden placed on
local taxpayers.Those same taxpayers who continue to vote against many city and school bonds/levies
due to inflated taxes.
I am also concerned about the strain this facility will place on emergency services.There is a real
possibility that first responders could be disproportionately rerouted to this site, reducing availability for
other residents and neighborhoods. Laurel's emergency services are already stretched thin, and this risk
must be carefully evaluated.
Laurel residents deserve open communication, responsible planning, and decisions that prioritize the
safety,financial stability, and long-term well-being of our community. At a minimum, I urge city
leadership to demand full transparency from the state and begin to involve the City Council and the
public on any future discussions related to this facility.
Finally, I ask the City Council and city leadership to carefully consider the concerns outlined above and
to vote against the annexation of this property.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Darby Gerondale
Laurel, Montana
2
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1 B
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 6:10 PM
To: Civil Attorney
Cc: Brittney Harakal; Kelly Strecker; Kurt Markegard
Subject: Fw: Letter in Opposition to Forensic Mental Health Facility in Laurel MT
From:Shelley White<shelley.whitel7@outlook.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 15, 2026 5:44 PM
To: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 213<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3A<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 313
<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 413<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>; Civil Attorney
<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>; Kurt Markegard <kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Letter in Opposition to Forensic Mental Health Facility in Laurel MT
MR. Mayor (Dave Waggoner), Council Members (Sara Naylor, Tom Canape, Jessica Banks, Brent Edgmond, Iry
Wilke, Casey Wheeler,Jodi Mackay, Richard Klose), City Attorney (Ms. Michele L. Braukmann), and Chief
Administrative Officer (Kurt Markegard)
To members of the Laurel City Government
My name is Shelley White. I am a Mastered prepared nurse who has been practicing for over 40 years. More
importantly, I write as a Mother, Grandmother and citizen of the city of Laurel. I write to vehemently oppose
the location of Forensic facility being placed anywhere in the proximity of a school. I will not address the lack
of transparency in this selection, as other members of the community have done a wonderful job in doing so. I
will address the one aspect as put for by CAO Kurt Markegard. He indicated at the city council meeting on
Feb.3rd,that he and the mayor had no idea what was being built early on in this process of bringing a Forensic
facility to Laurel. Regardless of if this was true or not, I feel I need to remind you that as OUR representatives
of this city, it is your Job. Plain and simple, it is your job to know the details before taking any action on behalf
of OUR city. If you cannot or do not do your job on behalf of OUR city, you are representative of only
yourselves.
Below I have listed only a few of the readily available information accessible to anyone that does 15 minutes
of research. As you, Mr.Markegard, are paid a rather large sum to work for us, it would not have been over
burdensome. The lack of doing so is not just inability to do due diligence, but ineptitude and negligence. This is
information that the City and Council members deserve before ever throwing Laurels hat into the ring.
What is a forensic Mental Health Facility
A forensic mental health facility is a specialized institution that provides assessment,treatment, and rehabil
itation for individuals with mental illness who are involved in the criminal justice system.
Definition and Purpose
i
A forensic mental health facility, often referred to as a
forensic hospital is designed specifically for individuals who have committed crimes and are deemed mentally
ill or unfit to stand trial These facilities operate at the intersection of mental health care and the criminal iusti
ce system focusing on both the treatment of mental health issues and the management of public safety.
What's Forensic Hospitals? - Dailyhealthways.com
What type of patients are treated at a Forensic facility
Forensic mental health facilities treat a diverse range of patients including those who are Incompetent to Stan
d Trial (IST) meaning they lack the capacity to understand legal proceedings or assist in their defense due to a
mental disorder. These patients are committed to the facility to restore their competencv and ensure thev can
participate in the legal process Another group is those found Not Guiltv by Reason of Insanitv (NGRI), who co
mmitted a crime but were not aware of the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to a severe mental dis
order at the time of the offense. These patients are also committed to the facilitv for treatment and stabilizati
on.
dailyhealthways.com
Patients may also be treated for Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) by the court, where the focus is on stabilizing
their condition and returning them to trial competency. Those found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) a
re committed to a psychiatric facilitv for treatment aiming to stabilize their mental health and reduce the risk
Of future harmful behavior.
dailyhealthways.com
The treatment plans for these patients are individualized and can include medication management, individual
therapy group therapy, and vocational rehabilitation The overall Roal is to prepare the patient for what come
s next after leaving the hospital whether that means returning to jail a prison cell or a community with outpa
tient treatment.
Lippincott
Past performance a predictor of future performance
The state-run facility in Warm Spring is another Forensic facility in Montana. That facility has a varied and
troubling past. After numerous years of being cited by CMS (Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services)The
state-run facility lost certification in 2022 when the facility lost certification. This loss of certification means it
can no longer receive payment for the treatment of the patients in the forensic facility. The state has still not
regained certification.
The reasons the state loss certification from CMS included Poor leadership and leadership retention, poor
staffing and staff retention, and lack of facility upkeep. The lack of the state to mitigate these factors leads to
patient harm and even preventable patient deaths.
We all recognize that state and local governments run on budgets. It takes money to run these types of
facilities, and the states lack fully funding the facility directly led to decertification.
2
We have no reason to believe this will change in the future as the state had numerous opportunities to correct
deficiencies and did not.
Staffing is one area that cannot be overlooked. The hospitals in Billing both have contracted nurses due to
staffing shortages. Nurses willing to work in Forensic facilities are particularly hard to find, which in all
probability leads to having contracted nurses. Contracted nurses are not permanent staff. They usually
contract for 8 to 12 weeks and then moved on. They make at least double what regular staff make. They are
temporary and expensive. They do not contribute to that tax base.
Will this new Forensic facility bring jobs, housing and families that increase our tax base to Laurel
Staff at this facility will not be going out into the community to get lunch, or dinner or buy at our local shops.
Generally, staff at Forensic facility do not care to live near the facilities. They go to work, eat in the cafeteria
for lunch or dinner, and when their shift is over leaving the community and going home. So, no real benefit to
the Laurel community will be seen.
Risk to our community
My last bit of research is pointed to the risk to our community and covers the discharge or release from a
Forensic facility. I have added the pertinent parts of the discharge to this letter. I bolded number 4 which
indicates that these patients can be discharged into the community. This poses a risk to our children and the
community ingeneral.
Montana State Hospital Policy and Procedure
DISCHARGE OR
CONDITIONAL RELEASE FROM FORENSIC
COMMITMENT
Page 3 of 104.
Consideration of mental disease or disorder or developmental disability in
sentencing per 46-14-311, MCA
a. Referred to as Pre-Sentence Examination (PSE)
5. Guilty but suffered from mental disease, mental disorder, or developmental
disability per 46-14-312, MCA
a. Referred to as Guilty But Mentally III (GBMI)
B. Discharge
The release of a patient from MSH and unconditional termination of a
period of forensic commitment. This release terminates formal obligations MSH has
towards the patient. Discharges may include:
1. Discharge to detention center
2. Discharge to court
3. Discharge to prison
3
4. Discharge to community
5.Discharge to community corrections program or supervision
Respectfully
Shelley White MSN, RN
Mother, Grandmother
Citizen of Laurel
4
Brittney Harakal
From: Civil Attorney
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 2:08 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: Fw: Mental hospital - Prison
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Civil City Attorney
City of Laurel
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
civilattorney@IaureLmt.gov
From: Monna Rae Adickes<monnarae@cbthebrokers.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 15, 2026 1:44:06 PM
To: mwaters@yellowstonecountymt.gov<mwaters@yellowstonecountymt.gov>; Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>;
Ward 4B<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>; Kurt Markegard<kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>
Cc:City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Civil Attorney<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>; Forrest Sanderson
<forrestsanderson@peaksplanningl.onmicrosoft.com>
Subject: Mental hospital - Prison
Hello,
Please share this with all persons listed but without an email address listed on the City's website for the Planning
Committee.
Please vote NO to the annexation of this currently zoned agricultural land. Please vote NO to the change of zoning
from agricultural to public.
This parcel of land should be zoned commercial along Hwy 10 with multifamily directly behind the commercial and
single family behind the multifamily.
This is NOT the property place for a prison.Yes, it is a correctional facility complete with two sets of razor wire.
I agree this facility is needed in Eastern Montana, put it in Laurel on the hill at the corner of Buffalo Trail and Airport
Rd, NOT in the backyard of our elementary school.
I look forward to seeing you all at the next planning session on the 18`h
1
MONNA RAE ADICKES
Real Estate Broker
Q 406-860-4284
►/ monnarae@cbthebrokers.com
3135 Meadow View Drive
f Billings, MT 59102
(PQwww.mra406.com
®. COLDWELL BANKER r THE BROKERS
2
Brittney Harakal
From: Michele Braukmann <michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 8:06 PM
To: Brittney Harakal; Kurt Markegard; City Mayor; Ward 1A;Ward 1B;Ward 2A;Ward 2B;
Ward 3A;Ward 3B;Ward 4A;Ward 4B
Subject: Fw: LAUREL DOES CARE
Please see attached. I will read into the record this week all of the public comment.
Thank you for all of your work on this. I know it's not fair. I appreciate each of you. Truly.
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Attorney at Law
Meridian Law, PLLC
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
michele@meridianlawmt.com
www.meridianlawmt.com
From: Michele Braukmann<michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 8:00:45 PM
To: Bette Brester<betteb1@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: LAUREL DOES CARE
Ms. Brester:
I am incredibly appreciative for your feedback. I am at my daughter's basketball game, and we have a
fun rivalry with Laurel—the Central Rams and the Laurel Locos. I love this rivalry. I'm as much green as
I am purple, even though I may need to "hide the purple" somewhat.
I don't usually respond to public messages, not because I don't care, but because myjob is to protect
the City, as my Client, and I have to be very cognizant of what I say or do. My concern and care for the
community, I hope, is evident in my actions to see through a difficult process in an informed way. It's a
very difficult job to do that as an attorney,when you are answering to many people and competing
interests.
I can promise this community that I will conduct myself ethically and in a transparent manner.
I'm grateful and humbled by your words.
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Attorney at Law
Meridian Law, PLLC
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
michele@rneridianlawmt.com
www.meridianlawmt.com
From: Bette Brester<bettebl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 7:42:43 PM
To: michele@meridianlawmt.com <michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Subject: Fw: LAUREL DOES CARE
From: Bette Brester<bettebl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 6:34 PM
To: michele@meridianlatmt.com <michele@meridianlatmt.com>
Subject: LAUREL DOES CARE
My name is Bette Brester and I live at 412 4th Ave. In Laurel. I have lived, worked and raised a family here for
over 70 years.
I thank you for trying to advise the City Council in legal matters. However, I do believe your job has gotten
way more difficult due to
a rogue Mayor and CAO.
I am sure you can understand why we are all upset, We have been deceived, lied to, and I feel sold out!
Hopefully, there will come a day when they have to stand up and face the Laurel Citizens and for once tell the
truth.
When that day comes, the Mayor owes you a huge apology and I certainly hope you receive it!
Hang In there.
Bette Brester
2
Brittney Harakal
From: City Mayor
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 3:47 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: Fw: State forensic facility
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Breanna Nardella <jonezie14@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 3:32:00 PM
To: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; michele@meridianlawmt.com <michele@meridianlawmt.com>; Kurt
Markegard <kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>; wardlb@laurel.mt.gov
<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3A
<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 313<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@ laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 46
<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: State forensic facility
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Mr. Markegard,
My name is Breanna, and I am a proud Laurel resident, homeowner, and mother raising my
family in this community. I am writing to formally express my objection to the proposed 32
bed forensic facility being placed in our neighborhood.
One of the main arguments being presented in favor of this project is the promise of new jobs.
But when you look closer, it is hard to see how those jobs will truly benefit the people of Laurel.
Many of the positions in a forensic facility require specialized training and experience, which
usually means they are filled by traveling nurses, contracted doctors, or staff brought in from
outside the area. That leaves only a small number of entry level or support roles for local
residents. Have you looked into how many jobs are open around our area? I did, 2,698 open
positions in a 10 mile radius. 750+ of those being health care alone, plus over 20 open law
enforcement/security jobs. We are not lacking job opportunities in Laurel. We are lacking the
workforce and housing to support the jobs we already have. Adding another specialized facility
will only create more positions that are difficult to fill and add more strain to an already
stretched workforce.
Beyond the job concerns, I am also writing as a mother. My primary responsibility is the safety
and well being of my children. The placement of a forensic facility near residential neighborhoods
raises serious concerns for families like mine.We chose Laurel because it is a safe, family
oriented community. We should not have to worry about the impacts this type of facility could
have on our daily lives, our children's safety, or the value of the homes we have worked so hard
to afford.
i
Like many young families, we have to budget hard to make sure our kids play activities and have
everything they need. We should not be expected to take on the responsibility to pay for this
facility since they will in no way benefit our city taxes. This land needs to be a neighborhood full
of city tax payers, kids going to our schools, and people who work in our community. Decisions
like this have long term consequences for the families who live here.
I am also concerned about the strain this type of facility could place on our already limited
emergency services. Laurel relies heavily on volunteer based response teams, and our resources
are already stretched thin.Adding a forensic facility introduces new risks and demands that our
infrastructure is not prepared to handle.
I would also like to thank the members of the City Council. I know many of you personally, and I
understand that you have been placed in a difficult position, often without full information. I
appreciate your willingness to listen to the community and the time you have dedicated to
representing the people of Laurel.
I have always been proud to be a Laurel Locomotive, and I never want to reach a point where I
question that pride. This community means everything to families like mine.
City Council, I respectfully ask you to consider voting no, keeping our town safe and allowing it to
grow in ways that support our children, our academics, our sports, and our community the way it
should moving forward.
Thank you again city council members for your time and your service to Laurel.
Sincerely,
Breanna Nardella
Get Quttoolc fo1
2
February 12, 2026
Laurel City Council, Mayor Dave Waggoner, CAO Kurt Markegard, Laurel City Attorney
Michelle Braukman, Clerk/Treasure Kelly Streck and Administrative Assistant Brittany
Harkel,
I handed something similar to you all this last Tuesday at City Council, however I feel it is
important that it be read in records.
The pure disappointment, disgust, embarrassment and astonishment I felt witnessing the
conduct of Mayor Waggoner and CAO Markegard throughout the last 6 months and last
week's workshop is unacceptable and should NOT be allowed. Our current leadership is in
complete disarray and reflects poorly on our entire community. It is quite apparent that
these two have purposely left CC and the City Attorney out of many discussions and
opportunities to learn about the MSF"Prison"as well as many other decisions and
discussions pertinent to the well-being of our town.
Last week CAO Markegard stated that"he didn't know what the facility was", "he was late to
the tour", "didn't have the QR code", and he did NOT allow our city council to be there. He
also fails to respond to emails from both city employees and community members about
many different issues, communication is essential in anyjob, especially city government.
Last week he also stated he had to take two days off the previous week and then informed
everyone last week he was taking another two days off. I also know of a specific incident
last year where a resident was needing responses from him about building and he was
gone for approximately 3 weeks. Past of Kurt's wage comes from LURA as the"city
planner" he has attended 1 of 3 in 2026 and 11 of 24 in 2025 which pays part of his salary.
He also stated on November 171h, 2025 CAO Markward's email to the BOI states"I also
have some zoning laws I would like to discuss. I believe state law has some exemptions for
certain types of government facilities." Is he working for the city or the State of Montana?
On, November 28, 2025, 1 and another city resident sent mayor text messages questioning
the news of the MSF Prison in Laurel. His responses, "I just got out of the hospital. I have
prostate cancer and they removed part of my prostate.The news just called me I had NO
idea", "I just heard about it an hour ago. It is all on the state. Last I heard it was Miles City.
They mentioned looking at the Woods property and going through the annexation process".
However, thru the provided timeline you will see that August 22, 2025 the email CAO
Markegard sent"on behalf of Mayor".
The mayor and CAO are out of the office, don't respond to emails, and have"no idea"what
anything is and they are leaving the CC, City Attorney, citizens of Laurel out of everything so
WHO IS RUNNING THE CITY OF LAUREL?
With the recent actions of the mayor towards the City Attorney Braukman we are adding
public records request for all public records with any past or present complaints from ALL
City Staff, City Council Members, All Contract personnel, Former and existing City Court
Judges against the mayor for his treatment of them.
Public records released as of the time of this letter have been emails between Kurt and the
BOI (Dan Villa) and MT DPHHS (Charlie Bereton), with only one cc to the city attorney and
one response from the mayor there are still many missing requests. And a handful of
screen shots between Kurt and Rep. Deming and Rep Ricci as well as Dan Villa; stating a
meetingwas to take place on November 21 between Kurt, Mayor Waggoner, Dan Villa and
Charlie Bereton. Totally contradicting the mayors November 28th texts stating, "I know
nothing". So again, I present the Public Records requests for all emails, phone logs, text
messages and social media post regarding any and all discussions regarding the MT
Forensic Prison/Water Lines/Zoning/between any of the following.
Kurt Markegard, Dave Waggoner, BOI (Dan Villa), MT DPHHS (Charlie Bereton), Dick
Anderson Construction Project Manager AJ Harmon and others at Dick Anderson, Norman
Miller of Miller Trois, LLC, Love's Gas Station Project Manager, Rep Deming, Rep Ricci, Sen
Esp, Sen Lentz as well as City of Laurel Employees; Clerk and Treasurer Kelly Strecker, City
Administrative Assistant Brittany Harkal and any individual or group of Past of Current
Laurel City Council Members from 5/1/2025 to present. This is important information that
the public deserves and has the right to know.
Be advised that as of this request and many before this, deletion or editing of comments
and messages would be spoilation of communication protected by MCA 2-2-1003.
1 do understand that this process may take time; however the continued lack of
transparency and communication is unacceptable and each public release presents more
and more dishonesty.
Sincerely,
Shawna Hopper
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1A
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Cc: Civil Attorney
Subject: FW: Forensic Mental Heath Facility:A Call to Action
-----Original Message-----
From: Kristi Hansen<kristi606@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:53 AM
To: Ward 1A<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>; City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Laurel City
Planner<cityplanner@laurel.mt.gov>; Cwhite@yellowstonecountymt.com; Mmorse@yellowstonecountymt.gov;
Mwatters@yellowstonecountymt.gov; cityattorney@laurel.mt.gov
Subject: Forensic Mental Heath Facility:A Call to Action
Mr. Mayor of Laurel, Mr. Kurt Markegard, Members of the City Council, Ms. City Attorney, and Yellowstone County
Commissioners,
Can you hear us?
Can you hear the call to action coming from your community? It is loud, clear, and impossible to ignore.
The majority of our community does not want this Forensic Mental Health Facility located in Laurel.The question before
you is simple: what are you going to do to make this right? Please do the right thing for Laurel. Please push for and
encourage the other communities that want this facility. Mental health is a serious issue that needs addressed, I am not
dismissing that at all- but Laurel is not the right place for a facility of this nature to call home.
Mr. Mayor and Mr. Markegard—this issue extends beyond the proposed facility itself.You have been placed under
scrutiny by the very community you serve. Many of us believe this moment calls for reflection, accountability, and a
renewed commitment to doing better by the people of Laurel. No leader can make everyone happy, and that is
understood. However, in this situation,the message from our community could not be clearer.
The writing is on the wall.
We will not be quiet.
We will continue to show up.
We will continue to speak out.
You will be reminded—every day and in every space—that this community is watching, listening, paying attention, and
holding its leaders accountable.We are talking, organizing, and fighting to keep our community whole.
We ask that you do your part.
Please show up for us.
As a community,we have the right to know the truth.As community leaders,you have the responsibility to be
transparent, forthcoming, and honest with us.That responsibility is not optional—it is your duty.
Can you do that?We believe you can. We believe you are capable of leading with integrity and courage. Now it is your
turn.The ball is in your court. Please prove it to all of us.
Please allow us to support you in taking the necessary steps to shut this project down in Laurel. It is not too late to
change course.
Let us do the right thing for Laurel—together, as a community.
Keep it honest. Keep it kind. Keep it positive. Keep it productive. Keep it safe. Keep Laurel whole.
Keep Laurel a thriving&wonderful place to live. I know I am proud to live here—how about you?
Let's take care of each other: our neighbors, schools, churches, elderly,youth, businesses,emergency responders—
everyone in our community. Let's root for each other, not against each other.
Respectfully,
Kristi Hansen
Laurel, MT
2
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1A
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Brittney Harakal
Cc: Civil Attorney
Subject: FW: Site Visit Question
I have not responded to her email. If there is an appropriate response I can send her I'd like to but will need
direction from the attorney,
Thankyou!
Sara B. Naylor
17l IL]C II AIL IIIIHC l IC} 09 I_Mtt- l W Itt'cI I
+ -lob-9NK NaNN
# \�;uIhrGiSLruxLiiitgu
From:Samantha Mayes<brown.samantham@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:24 AM
To:Ward 2B<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 4A<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 1A<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 1B
<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 3B<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 2A<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>;Ward 3A
<wa rd 3 a@ l a u re I.mt.gov>
Subject:Site Visit Question
Good Morning!
I am wondering if any of you were invited to the site visit back in July of 2025 for the mental health facility?
After reviewing the texts and the emails released by the city,that detail stood out to me. Maybe, if one of
you had been there,you would have asked more questions than CAO Markegard did.Additionally, I sent
this email to the Mayor and the CAO this morning, and I am wondering if any of this information has come
up to you, our City Council:
I am writing about the letters and text messages released by the city this week. I am confused, as the
official line coming out of City Hall is that neither the Mayor nor the Chief Administrator had anything to
do with bringing this facility to Laurel, and that Laurel City Hall had no idea what type of facility this was
going to be. However, going back to July 7th, Mayor Waggoner texted CAO Markegard, "We will work with
them [the state] on what they need."Why would you not ask the state what they wanted to do with that
Land while saying you would work with the state?Why would you work with the state on what they need if
you really,truly did not know what they were doing?Why would you hand our community's future up to
the state on a silver platter if you had no idea this was going to be a forensic mental health facility?
On 10/8, Markegard spoke to Lee Deming for almost an hour. And we are still to believe that in that
conversation, Markegard never once asked what this facility was for? Not once?
On November 14th, Dan Villa reached out to CAO Markegard, asking him to write a letter of interest for
the facility in exchange for a beer. Again, why would Markegard do any of this without knowing what
the facility was?Just for a beer?On 11/17, Markegard wrote in an email, "I believe state law has some
exemptions for state facilities." How would he know what the exemptions were if he had no
understanding of what facility this was going to be?
At this point, it is really, really difficult to assume anything but dishonesty coming from the Mayor and the
CAO. I really do not want to assume that,though, and I want to assume that they are both doing their
best to represent our great community, but maybe if some of these questions were answered in a formal
capacity, we can start to rebuild that trust.
Thank you,
Samantha Mayes
2
Public Comment
41-, This form is used to electronically submit your public comment to be read into the record at the next City Council
meeting during the Public Comment section. Please note: If you are submitting a public comment for a posted public
4PONT hearing,your comments will be held until the public hearing,at which time they will be read into the record.
First Name* Last Name*
Herman&Cheri Streck
Physical Address*
Street Address
2330 OLD HIGHWAY 10 W
Address Line 2
City State/Province/Region
LAUREL Montana
Postal/Zip Code
59044
E-mail
cheri_streck@yahoo.com
Subject
What is the topic of your comment.
New hospital
Public Comment*
Please enter your public comment below.Your comment will be read into the record exactly as submitted.
We are against the new hospital because of the location. We were first told it would be on cemetery hill.That location
is not located by any homes or schools.Could it be because that location is too close to Kurt Markegard
and council members?Another thing that I don't like is it seems like your being too secretive about this.It seems like your trying to shove it
down our throats. We thought Laurel didn't want it here until Kurt Markegard and the mayor wrote a letter to them,WHY?
Herm&Cheri Streck
Signature
Brittney Harakal
From: Ward 1A
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 2:20 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: FW: Opposed to Forensic Mental Health Facility
.f
Sam B. 1' avlor
C's ux11\Icnrlxr c'K%, e,i'I.rUMI \\M'd 1
+ -10b 59K 9-199
From: Brent Peters<brpeters@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 2:14 PM
To: City Mayor<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; Ward 1A<ward la @ la urel.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>; Ward 1B<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>; Civil Attorney
<civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Opposed to Forensic Mental Health Facility
March 17, 2026
Brent Peters; 1995 Saddleback Drive, Area resident
I am fully aware of what type businesses that can be run at the City of Laurel level. In 13 years as the Fire
Chief, I worked for five Mayors and three separate CAO's. I have seen personal agendas being pushed to build
ones Legacy's. I have seen business decisions made by Mayors and CAO's that were the responsibly of the
Council to make. It always baffled me how someone trying to build a legacy will sacrifice the oath they took for
this community.
Department Heads, CAO's and Attorneys are just pawns used to get business done at any cost and they are
the ones to take the fall when things do not go right. Relationships between the daily decision makers and
their subordinates are built by friendships or alliances of who has their backs when the shit hits the fan. If your
alliance is to the community and not the City leadership then you are an outcast and your department will pay
the price.
It would be great to have the transparency so the citizens of Laurel can hold elected officials accountable for
their actions and decisions. A transparency that pushes council members to know voters opinions and enables
them to do what they were elected to do. .
i
Once this issue is dead,there will not be that monitoring of City business until the next issue. Face it; everyone
is too busy to keep the city government in check each day.
Every Council member I have had the privilege to sit and talk with I have told the same thing. Once your
personal agenda, because that is why people run for seats, once your personal agenda is addressed remember
that you still have a responsibility to the City and citizens of Laurel. Your term just does not end when your
agenda is complete. Nor do you quite when your agenda fails.These are not positions to show power or brag.
They are positions of trust, reason and responsibility to help Laurel thrive and remain safe. As I always told the
Firefighters, "what we do is bigger than any one of us". There is no place in the city government or city
services for individual gains.
After watching all the Council meetings and reading the mounds of emails and social media posts, I would like
to say I do not believe the Mayor nor Markegard were lying. At least to a major extent of State Forensic
Mental Facility. I believe before August they did not know about the States plans. I also believe they did not
directly lobby for this facility, as did Custer and Big Horn counties. What I do feel is they grossly violated their
ethical duties to the City of Laurel and citizens. They did this by not informing the Council on the States plans
or any correspondence they had with the State. They also wrote letters to the State without the City Attorney
reviewing them. They gave the State land ideas and process of making this work through annexation. As what
was stated by Markegard, "most of the criteria would make building the facility remarkably successful". They
did this without any regard of the impact to Laurel. That sounds like someone trying to build Legacies at the
expense of Laurel.
Everyone has done an amazing job opposing these plans. I would like to say for the record that our residence
also opposes the State of Montana's plans for the Forensic Mental Facility to be placed in Laurel. Rather than
re hashing the many reasons why it should not be placed here, I would rather focus on ensuring there is a
complete understanding of a few things.
1. Several people have expressed the need and support of mental health facilities in Montana. I also
agree with that but this is NOT a civil mental health facility although the state claims it COULD be. This
is a Forensic (CRIMINAL) Mental Health Facility. Some of the worst of the worst will be housed here for
up to six months. 32 beds and 170 inmates each year. Normal mental health and addiction treatment
needs will continue to be a need in the state.
2. Mr. Markegard stated that when he asked the State how much land they needed and he was informed
10 acres. The State has purchased/ placed a buy sell on 114 acres. What will be done with the
remaining 104 acres? Expansion? Build a new prison or detention center on the remainder of the land.
The Women's Prison in Billings sits on 4.29 acres and the Yellowstone County Detention center/county
shop is on 20.48 acres. The Montana State prison in Deer Lodge sits on 32,031.95 acres. Therefore,this
project has the potential of being a lot bigger.
3. According to the DPHHS "Building a Foundation for Future Generations: Montana's New Behavioral
Health Facility supplement dated October 2025 and House bill 5, 26.5 million dollars is allocated for the
Forensic Mental Facility. There is also 41.970 in a state special reserve (Behavioral Health Systems for
Future Generations, BHSFG) that could be used on this project. That makes it 68.470 million.
4. There is a significant amount of state owned land that can be developed for this project surrounding
Billings, away from public and residential areas. Not all trusted land is for schools. 100- 600 acre
tracks.
2
I would like to thank all of those who have reached out or stood up here and fought for what is right for
Laurel. Never stop fighting.
Brent S Peters
3
Brittney Harakal
From: Michele Braukmann <michele@meridianlawmt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:02 PM
To: Brittney Harakal
Subject: Fw: Forensic psychiatric facility
Best Regards,
Michele L. Braukmann
Attorney at Law
Meridian Law, PLLC
Cell Phone: 406.671.4333
michele@meridianlawmt.com
www.meridianlawmt.com
From: Heather Safford <heathersaffordanddylan@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 3:57:22 PM
To: michele@meridianlawmt.com <michele@meridianlawmt.com>; citymayor@laurel.mt.gov
<citymayor@laurel.mt.gov>; kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov<kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov>;governor@mt.gov
<governor@mt.gov>;ward4a@laurel.mt.gov<ward4a@laurel.mt.gov>; ward4b@laurel.mt.gov
<ward4b@laurel.mt.gov>; Lee.Deming@leg.mt.gov<Lee.Deming@leg.mt.gov>; Vince.Ricci@leg.mt.gov
<Vince.Ricci@ leg.mt.gov>; DVilla@mt.gov<DVilla@mt.gov>; BOI.Loans@mt.gov<BOI.Loans@rnt.gov>;jebelt@mt.gov
<jebelt@mt.gov>; Kim.Aiken@mt.gov<Kim.Aiken@mt.gov>; ward3a@laurel.mt.gov<ward3a@laurel.mt.gov>;
ward3b@laurel.mt.gov<ward3b@laurel.mt.gov>; ward2a@laurel.mt.gov<ward2a@laurel.mt.gov>;
ward2b@laurel.mt.gov<ward2b@laurel.mt.gov>; wardla@Iaurel.mt.gov<wardla@laurel.mt.gov>;
wardlb@laurel.mt.gov<wardlb@laurel.mt.gov>
Subject: Forensic psychiatric facility
To whom this may concern,
I am writing this to express my opposition to the forensic psychiatric facility being built in Laurel.
I was in full support when I first heard about this project. I like many others believed that this facility
would be used for general public and their mental health care needs but that is not the case. At first I
thought this was a miscommunication but in light of other information I believe that some of our
representatives are intentionally misleading our community.
While it is deeply disturbing to see this behavior the lack of concern for the students is unforgivable. lam
aware that escapes are unlikely but they do happen. It only takes five to six minutes to walk 500
yards. Would the school be able to get all the kids to safety in such a short time? Will Laurel students be
forced to do prisoner escape drills along with active shooter drills?
The school board and many community members are very clear about their opposition to this
facility. Please do what is best for Laurel and especially its students.
Thank you,
i
Heather Safford
2