This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
About two dozen people packed a public meeting room Tuesday to express to the Laurel City Council their vehement opposition to the state proposal to build a new psychiatric facility on the outskirts of town, one intended to treat people in the criminal justice system.
City council members sat in silence as they listened to nearly two hours of commentary from frustrated community members about the selection of a 114-acre parcel just off Old Highway 10 and Golf Course Road. The council is not currently considering a request from the Gianforte administration to annex the property to connect it to Laurel’s city water and sewer infrastructure. But the prospect of such a request materializing in the not-so-distant future has led the Laurel city attorney to repeatedly instruct elected officials to refrain from issuing any opinions or views on the matter to avoid the perception of prejudging any request that might come before them.
While the council members’ lips were tightly sealed, residents of Laurel and the surrounding area gave them an earful.
First, they criticized the state’s proposed location for the 32-bed facility, which would put criminal defendants and convicts with severe mental illness within 500 yards of an elementary school, adjacent to residential homes and, some opponents noted, close to a community golf course.
Some went as far as to call the facility a “mental health prison” that would be filled with “the worst of the worst.” Others said they supported the need for more mental health treatment options in the area, just not at that precise location.
“Safety is more than just access to the building. It’s the students and the teachers state of mind,” said Chris Lorash, chair of the Laurel Public Schools board, which recently announced its opposition to the site location. “I’ve already had my children coming home asking about this facility and wondering about what it means. So I think that it’s something that needs to be considered.”
Second, opponents said that connecting the facility to city services would burden Laurel’s limited tax base. Residents are already holding private fundraisers to support schools and emergency first responders, some community members said. Why would Laurel agree to put tax dollars toward a facility that is exempt from paying property taxes and doesn’t obviously support the city’s bottom line?
Perhaps more than any other complaint, residents expressed mistrust and confusion about how Laurel found itself at the top of the state’s list for possible site locations. Repeatedly mentioned by residents was a Nov. 17 letter from the city’s chief administrative officer, Kurt Markegard. Unlike bids from other localities expressing interest in the facility, Markegard’s letter explained that there were no appropriate locations in Laurel’s city limits for the facility, but explained the process for annexing a property to city services.
Residents pointed to that letter as an indication of obscure dealmaking that had been in the works to bring the facility to Laurel dating back to mid-2025.
“Backdoor deals have been made without consulting the Laurel community. We deserve answers,” wrote resident Samantha Mayes, whose public comment letter was read into the public record at the meeting by the city attorney. “I again want to know what role the city played in this decision, how Laurel was selected over other willing communities, and most importantly, how the voices of residents and elected officials are intended to be heard.”
In a statement in between rounds of public comment, Markegard briefly responded to some of the criticism filed against him via email and letters to council members and city staff. The Gianforte administration approached him and the mayor back in July, Markegard said, along with officials from Billings and Yellowstone County, to consider possible local sites for the facility. Markegard told community members that he was willing to go through his emails and all his communication about the issue since then, promising to be an open book.
“I want open and transparent government. That’s what I want. That’s what I want from the council members. That’s what I want from the mayor and I want that from the public,” Markegard said.
The city commission did not take any action related to the mental health facility after public comment.