Laurel residents, school board press council to oppose state forensic mental health facility and demand records

Dozens of residents packed Laurel's council chamber on Feb. 10 to urge the City Council to oppose a proposed state-run 32-bed forensic mental health facility that the state says would sit on roughly 114 acres just outside city limits.

Speakers ranged from long-time homeowners, business owners and school officials to veterans and civic volunteers. Many cited the site's proximity to West Elementary School (public comments repeatedly referenced about 400—00 yards depending on where buildings would be placed), the potential strain on volunteer emergency response and ambulance service, and a lack of transparency from city leadership in early communications with state officials and the Board of Investments (BOI).

"I oppose the forensic mental health prison," said Juanita Bear, a Laurel resident, asking the council to "build trust with the community members that you serve." Julie Jones, who said she had served on town and county bodies elsewhere, urged councilors to remember their oath and "not change the laws to fit a project that has not yet earned the trust of the community." Brittney Hunter read a written statement from the Laurel Public School Board of Trustees and Superintendent Matt Torricks saying the district formally opposes siting the facility close to elementary students on safety grounds.

Why this matters: residents and school leaders said the facility would do more than place a medical/custodial institution near homes; they said the choice of site could preclude residential growth on the city's west side, depress property values, and require ongoing local service demands without commensurate tax revenue. Several speakers asked the council to demand fuller disclosure and to require the state to follow standard annexation and zoning review before any local approvals.

Council action and staff responses: the council took no formal action on annexation or zoning at the meeting; Council President Tom Canape and multiple members said the City has not received a formal annexation request from the state. City Attorney Michele Braukmann instructed council members and the public to preserve correspondence and records, noting public-records requests are discoverable. CAO Kurt Markegard and other staff answered questions about what had been posted to the city's website and about prior communications: "The released documents are located on the City's website," staff said when asked which records were publicly available.

Routine business proceeded: the council carried two routine resolutions by unanimous votes—08-0—to continue an IT services agreement with Systems Technology Consultants (R26-05) and to approve a Transportation Coordination Plan for Laurel Transit (R26-06). The meeting ended after council discussed whether to convene an executive session on litigation at a later date.

Context and next steps: the proposed facility and the BOI's buy-sell agreement for the 114-acre parcel were topics of earlier communications and public debate. Speakers at the meeting asked the council to request an independent review of city leadership's communications with the state and BOI and to preserve and produce public records related to the site selection. City officials said they will respond to any formal annexation request through the normal planning, annexation and zoning process required by city code and state law; until such a request is filed, the council said, there is no local permit or ordinance to approve or deny.

The meeting closed with a roll-call vote to adjourn. If the state submits a formal annexation application, the council would be required to consider public hearings, a growth-policy amendment if applicable, and a zoning map amendment before assigning a land-use designation for the parcel.