Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Mental Health Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laurel residents press city leaders over proposed state forensic mental health facility; mayor says letters will be part of the public record
Summary
At a Feb. 24 Laurel City Council meeting, more than a dozen residents urged the council to oppose or slow a proposed state forensic mental health facility, citing proximity to an elementary school, public-safety concerns and procedural gaps. The mayor said letters submitted will be entered into the public record and available with the minutes.
Mayor Dave Waggoner opened the Feb. 24 meeting by announcing that letters concerning the proposed forensic mental health facility will be "entered into the public record under correspondence," and that anyone wishing to have a letter read verbatim may appear during public comment.
Dozens of residents and community representatives used the three-minute public-comment period to raise safety and process concerns about the state's proposed facility site near Laurel. Speakers emphasized the site's proximity to an elementary school and youth sports fields, asked for details about security and staffing, and urged greater transparency from state and local officials.
Harper Anderson, speaking for the Laurel High School softball program, asked the council to consider effects on recreational space and evening practices. Several residents pressed the council to pursue an emergency ordinance and to coordinate with Yellowstone County; Kris Vogele and Elizabeth Gilg said they had submitted supporting materials and a written request for emergency action.
Some commenters framed the issue as a process problem. A resident letter in the meeting packet argued the state executed a buy-sell agreement before adequate local hearings, raising claims that Montana's constitutional "right to participate" and required annexation and environmental-review steps may not have been satisfied. That letter recommended relocating the project to communities seen as more cooperative.
One of the emailed letters published in the packet, from Kelli Lemke, was read into the record and included this passage: "The proposed mental health facility is about 550 yards from our front door." Other written submissions, which the civil city attorney read into the minutes, asked the city to require clearer information about infrastructure, response protocols, and whether the state's timeline is compatible with annexation and zoning processes.
City officials said they are reviewing public records requests and will refine search terms and invoicing practices to keep production manageable. Council Member Jodi Mackay asked for a substantive statement from the mayor about how the situation developed and the anticipated next steps; the mayor said staff and the city attorney would work on that response.
The packet also included a multi-month timeline of emails and documents showing correspondence between City staff and state officials, the Board of Investments, and legislators dating back to May 2025. That timeline documents site tours, state requests for local information, and state deadlines for proposals.
The council did not take formal action on the facility during the meeting. Several residents asked for a public town hall with the Board of Investments and the Department of Public Health and Human Services so state officials could answer residents' questions directly. The council adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
