LAUREL, MONTANA · SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
I am furious. Laurel deserves answers.
The state's own record raises specific questions about the proposed forensic facility. Families deserve written answers about safety, custody, water, public money, and accountability.
My daughter climbed a fence at her elementary school after being locked out. Good Samaritans found her blocks away before the school even noticed she was missing. That experience is why general assurances about safety are not enough for me. I know how quickly supervision can fail and how long a family can be left waiting for the people in charge to notice.
I am furious about the way liability questions have been handled as the state advances its proposed forensic mental health facility near Laurel's schools and homes. I want a plan for what happens when safeguards fail, who responds, who pays, and who is accountable.
I put those concerns into one public-comment submission organized in eleven parts. This article explains the central issues and links the evidence. Where the record supports a finding, I say so. Where it leaves a serious question unanswered, I identify the records and explanation the agencies should provide.
01Who is responsible when safeguards fail?
The record already contains a resident's direct question about liability for incidents affecting students, staff, and school operations. That comment is Gayle Everitt's, not mine. It appears at MT001056 and continues on MT001057. Its presence establishes that the issue is in the record; it does not establish who personally read it.
The state describes security systems and says it will pursue transfer agreements with Billings providers. Those are relevant answers about prevention and expected service demand. They do not explain who bears responsibility for negligent supervision, delayed notification, an unauthorized departure, or a transport failure. The draft construction contract contains indemnity and insurance provisions protecting BOI, and a limitation on BOI's contractual liability. I want the executed terms, the coverage for facility operations, and an explanation of what an injured family can actually do.
BOI has put protections for itself in writing. Families deserve a specific account of the agencies' responsibilities.
02Tell people plainly who will occupy these beds
I find it deeply offensive when broad mental-health and behavioral-health language obscures the facility's court-ordered, custodial purpose. In my view, the state is invoking public support for treatment without providing an equally clear account of the people assigned to this particular facility and the authority under which they will be confined.
The FAQ lists evaluation, competency restoration, and sentenced populations. That is not a projected allocation of Laurel's beds. Will Laurel directly provide evaluation and restoration, or mainly house sentenced people to free beds elsewhere? The public deserves the operating plan, not a list of services the wider system provides.
The planning material also groups GBMI and NGMI under a sentencing statute. MCA 46-14-312 concerns sentencing after conviction. MCA 46-14-301 provides a separate pathway after an acquittal because mental disease prevented the required mental state. Montana's lack of a traditional NGRI defense does not erase that narrower pathway. The state should use accurate legal categories and quantify the actual population.
Psychiatric treatment and criminal-justice custody can coexist. Neither fact excuses obscuring the other. I also want an accounting of the investment in earlier treatment, crisis response, and diversion. By the time people need forensic care, our systems have failed too many of them earlier.
03A sentence does not last until someone is better
A sentence under MCA 46-14-312 has a definite term subject to the statute's limits. Continued need for treatment does not by itself extend it. When that sentence expires, continued detention requires a separate lawful basis. Calling the facility a treatment center must not imply that everyone stays until recovered or no longer dangerous.
The FAQ promises discharge planning and says return to the county of origin is typical. I acknowledge that. But what happens if a sentence expires and no receiving placement, transportation, or separate lawful commitment is secured? Where does the person actually go?
I am concerned about an unplanned discharge into Laurel. I am not claiming that every release must occur here. I am demanding the policy, funding, legal authority, and contingency arrangements that address that possibility.
04A classification is not a school-safety assessment
The state says the one-mile restriction in MCA 53-30-607 applies to private correctional facilities, while this project will be publicly owned and operated as a forensic mental health facility. That is its stated legal position. The record reviewed here does not establish an automatic violation of that statute or a one-mile zone of automatic liability.
It also does not make the school-safety question disappear. Publish the distance from the building, patient outdoor areas, and transport entrance to school grounds and play areas. The EA's approximate half-mile measurement uses the proposed construction location; residents' measurements may use different endpoints. Show the map and the method.
Then provide the site-specific assessment of detection, notification, transport, evacuation, and response failures. The absence of a risk study commissioned by parents is not affirmative evidence that the proposed safeguards are adequate.
05Patients have outdoor rights, and security promises need to be enforceable
The draft floor plan does show outdoor space: four pod recreation areas labeled 481 square feet each. A claim that there is simply no outdoor area would be wrong. The question is whether the final design and operating arrangements meet the applicable requirements.
ARM 37.106.1610(7) requires secured outdoor exercise space with an enclosed individual area and a large fenced group area. The FAQ promises double-layer fencing around all outdoor areas; the EA describes high-security fencing around certain sections. Those descriptions might be compatible, but the agencies need to identify the controlling plan and specifications.
Show which spaces satisfy the individual and group requirements, how they will be staffed, and what changes at 64 beds. Descriptions of natural features or the absence of a prison-style yard do not answer those questions. Read the outdoor-space rule.
06Laurel is a charter city. Its water is not an assumed project input
Laurel's charter establishes self-government powers and places legislative and policy authority in the council. The charter and the city's separate annexation policy must each be addressed. They are not the same document, and charter status does not mean every local policy overrides every state law. It does mean the state must explain precisely which authority controls.
The August 31 revised EA proposes compelling service under MCA 7-13-4346, enforcing the Love's agreement, challenging the annexation moratorium, and pursuing eminent domain or reallocation of water rights. It also proposes buying and decommissioning other properties to offset demand.
MCA 7-13-4346 requires more than a nearby pipe. It includes a qualifying subdivision, a connection request, distance requirements, and managing-entity certifications concerning capacity, authorization, compliance, and a water right. Identify the evidence for every condition.
For condemnation, name the entity bringing the action and its statutory authority. BOI's general investment statute contains no express condemnation grant. A lease producing a return does not automatically defeat public use, but neither does the label “State” establish BOI's authority or the necessity of a particular taking. Explain what would be taken, who pays, and how an existing municipal public use is protected.
07Show how $26.5 million became a $48.3 million contract
HB5 section 17 provides $26.5 million. The revised EA describes another $28.5 million from BHSFG funding and a contract capped at $48,296,810.40. Those are funding sources and a contract ceiling, not proof that every dollar has been spent. The public needs one complete budget showing authority, approvals, transfers, commitments, and payments.
I have raised a report that foundation requirements, including piers, contributed to the higher cost. I have not located a primary document quantifying that increase. That is why I am demanding the final geotechnical recommendation, foundation drawings, dated estimates, and a cost reconciliation. If this site's soils increased the cost, when did BOI know, and did it reconsider the site's financial advantage?
The buy-sell agreement lists $4.25 million for the land, not $4.5 million. The state explains the 114 acres in terms of expansion, security, support, and buffers. That explanation needs an acreage calculation and a market appraisal. Concerns about prior dealings and an unjustified benefit to sellers deserve independent investigation; they are not findings already proved by a high price alone.
08Make the promised design part of an enforceable agreement
The draft contract requires conformity with plans and budget exhibits. But section 15 says those exhibits are illustrative and not part of the agreement, with a separately signed agreement required for material changes. Which signed instrument makes the publicly promised security and patient-care features enforceable?
The April 22 minutes record contract approval pending a DPHHS notice to proceed and both supporting and opposing testimony. The reproduced contract has blank signatures. Its retroactive effective-date language is not proof of a signed, irrevocable January commitment. Publish the executed versions and chronology, including what remained open to change when residents were invited to comment.
09The technical record needs an accountable author
The geotechnical material includes a page headed “Opportunity Bank Belgrade Preliminary Geotechnical Memo”, while the Laurel material also uses Scobey-region language. Those may be template mistakes. They do not prove every test is wrong. They do require the author to certify which data and conclusions apply to Laurel and provide the final signed report.
The revised water assessment contains engineering analysis and upstream/downstream testing. It also describes an estimated pressure at the proposed site and a denied request for an adjacent-hydrant test. Identify what has been measured, what remains modeled, and what acceptance testing is required. Annual water availability, daily demand, storage volume, and fire-flow pressure answer different questions.
10Project advocates should not control an investigation into themselves
Esp's legislative involvement, CFHHS committee participation, and advocacy for this project are documented. That does not establish that he sits on the BOI Audit Committee or Legislative Audit Committee. These are different bodies, and the distinctions matter.
The BOI Audit Committee charter provides oversight and investigative authority. Mark Barry, identified in the committee's December 2025 roster, moved the April contract approval. Prior participation alone does not prove legal disqualification. It does make the independence of a review a concrete issue.
I want an investigator independent of the acquisition, contracting, and advocacy decisions under examination. Esp and Villa can provide evidence and answer findings. Neither an official title nor support for treatment should place conduct beyond scrutiny.
11Answer the evidence, not an easier version of the objection
An April 3 review of AI-generated St. Louis material identifies mistaken geographic associations and public-safety claims that could not be verified or reproduced. The agencies should show which claims were used, rejected, or corrected. I have not established that a particular official knowingly repeated a discredited claim after receiving that warning.
The state's own court-order table reports GBMI orders rising from 4 to 26 and describes a 650% increase. The increase is 550%; 26 is 650% of 4. The revised EA repeats the error. It also discloses the waitlist's decline from 128 to 87, so the issue is reconciling those figures with the forecast, not pretending the decline was hidden.
Comparisons with other communities need comparable populations, staffing, security, and incident data. Regional economic benefits need to be separated from actual costs to Laurel, the county, and the school district. Existing state grants do not automatically fund this project's future impacts.
The documents and the demand
I want a numbered response identifying the answer, the supporting document, the responsible official, and any corrective action. If an agreement, analysis, or approval does not exist, say so. If another body has jurisdiction, identify it. Do not let the boundaries between agencies make accountability disappear.
I intend to use every available lawful avenue to hold responsible entities and individuals accountable where the facts and law support it. Families and patients both deserve a defensible decision.
Record links open the relevant page of the source-excerpt PDF. MT numbers are the administrative record's printed identifiers. The August 31 EA's printed page numbers differ from its hearing-packet PDF page numbers by four. This article reflects the records reviewed as of September 15, 2026.