Laurel residents press council over stateforensic facility; staff communications and annexation plans draw scrutiny

Mayor Dave Waggoner presided over a nearly two-hour Jan. 27 City Council meeting in Laurel, where public comment was dominated by opposition to a recently announced State of Montana plan to locate a 32-bed forensic psychiatric facility on a 114-acre parcel west of the city.

Chief Administrative Officer Kurt Markegard told residents he would remain after the meeting to review his emails and walk the public through zoning and annexation law, saying, "I will sit here, and I will discuss it," and offering additional meeting times later in the week. Markegard also acknowledged staff communications with state officials dating back months and provided a copy of a Nov. 17 letter he sent to the state's Board of Investments identifying a potential site near Laurel and the water/sewer work already planned for the area.

Speakers representing the Laurel School District, including Superintendent Matt Torix, urged the council to oppose annexation if it is proposed. "I do not support the facility being placed where it currently is being suggested," Torix said, citing the site's proximity—about 460 yards—to Laurel Elementary and concerns for student safety and school climate. School board members and parents reported students asking anxious questions and said the district formally opposed that parcel.

Yellowstone County Commissioner Mark Morris told the council he could not support the facility without more detail. "Without detail, I cannot support this facility being in Yellowstone County," Morris said, calling it a "secure" forensic use and warning of cumulative impacts given the county's existing state and correctional programs.

Multiple residents and civic leaders pressed the council for transparency and a halt to unilateral staff engagement with the state. They asked whether identifying sites, utilities and annexation potential constitutes facilitation and demanded that the city require independent feasibility, fiscal-impact, traffic and public-safety studies before any annexation or service provision. Several callers said they were surprised to learn staff had been in contact with state officials since at least August 2025 and pointed to the Nov. 17 letter from CAO Markegard as evidence of active staff outreach.

Council members did not vote on annexation or the facility at the meeting. Instead the council handled routine consent items and approved three resolutions and an appointment (see separate meeting roundup). Several residents said they would press the Planning Board and the council at future hearings and asked the city to require binding agreements from the state to cover all incremental infrastructure and public-safety costs if annexation is ever pursued.

The council meeting packet included numerous emails and public comments submitted after the state's announcement; many speakers read from those written questions at the podium. After the meeting, Markegard reiterated his offer to meet with community members to go over his correspondence and the legal criteria the city uses when considering annexation or providing services to a property outside city limits.

Next procedural steps on any annexation would typically include a Planning Board review and public hearings; several residents were directed to that process during the meeting. The city did not take formal action on annexation at this meeting.