Montana

Everyone agrees Montana needs more state psychiatric beds, no one in Laurel wants them there • Daily Montanan

Published

1 hour ago

March 12, 2026

Everyone agrees Montana needs more state psychiatric beds, no one in Laurel wants them there • Daily Montanan

LAUREL — To understand the controversy surrounding locating a psychiatric hospital in Laurel, city officials have heard hours and hours of testimony objecting to the concept — even though nothing formal has been proposed and it’s nearly impossible to find a single public official willing to offer opinions on the record.

Part of that is because nothing has been formally proposed to the Laurel City Council — and on advice of the city’s attorney, the eight council members have remained silent because if and when a proposal is submitted to build the 32-bed facility there, those council members will decide whether to accept the annexation not (currently the land is in the county).

For years, the Montana State Hospital has been over capacity, forcing the state to do something about just having 53 psychiatric beds for criminal justice holds in a state of 1.2 million.

What spurred on a flood of negative comments and rallied the community was notice of the state entering a buy-sell agreement for 114 acres at the western edge of town, along Old U.S. Highway 10.

Since the state purchased the acreage, residents have implored the city council to stop the project. State lawmakers and administration officials have budgeted for, and repeatedly outlined, the need for more psychiatric beds, and a location that isn’t deep inside the western side of the state.

Laurel residents have already organized, split up public comment time and led an effort to recall the mayor, Dave Waggoner, saying his treatment for cancer has made him unable to devote enough attention to the psychiatric facility and other council business, a charge which he denied.

During a Jan. 27 meeting, citizens packed the small city council chambers in Laurel, and dozens of residents had their objections read into the record, even though city officials repeatedly reminded them there was nothing official to comment on.

Members of the public spilled beyond the City Council chambers of Laurel on Jan. 27, 2026, even though the city had not received any formal plans for a proposed psychiatric facility near town (Laurel City Council feed via YouTube).

“While mental health treatment is important, this is a forensic mental health facility that serves individuals who are in the criminal justice system. That reality must be acknowledged,” said resident Bailey Dempster, who lives near the potential project site. “This is not a sigma or fear. It is about responsibility and a facility of this nature should be located in areas designed to support secure operations and public safety, not next to children, schools and family homes. Once the facility is built, the the impact is permanent. The consequences will be carried by residents long after this vote is taken. Please reconsider this location and look for safer alternatives.”

Limited to a three-minute time period, the comments lasted for nearly two hours. Residents have banded together, with an extensive list of questions they took turns reading. As one person’s time limit expired another would begin reading so that more than 100 questions were read into the record, including demands to know whether city staff had been disciplined for speaking to state officials about the project.

City officials acknowledge that the chief administrative officer did reach out in August to offer a suggestion of a different site, one that was ultimately not chosen. Irritated residents wanted to know who authorized the conversation, and accused city officials of orchestrating the deal before the public had any chance to comment. During the meeting, city officials pointed out other cities had made similar inquiries and proposals.

Residents have decried the project, ticking off a litany of concerns ranging from its proximity to an elementary school to a strain on the Laurel Police or the municipal water system. Furthermore, they say building a state psychiatric facility so close to residential homes will lessen the value of current property and put owners at risk in case of an inmate escape.

“I got grandkids going to school here,” said resident Rich Holstein. “And there’s just nothing good that really comes out of this. And in the end, I think that we really need to be looking at that: What would benefit Laurel? If there’s no benefit to Laurel other than we sold them some land, then why are we doing this? It’s really simple. Why we are doing it, and it just doesn’t make sense.”

But they’re not the only ones objecting.

Laurel Public Schools has passed a resolution calling on the city council to reject any proposal from the state to build the facility, with school board members and even Superintendent Matt Torix testifying at a council meeting, urging council members to vote against a proposal that doesn’t exist yet.

In a legislative update earlier this week, officials briefed the Child, Families, Health and Human Services Interim Committee about the possible siting, noting that while the parcel of land spans 114 acres, the actual location of the building will be more than a half-mile away from Laurel Elementary School. The state also provided maps of other Montana communities, including showing that the current Yellowstone County Detention Facility remains closer to an elementary school than the proposed psychiatric site.

An aerial map of the proposed site for a state-run psychiatric facility and its proximity to the nearest elementary school (Courtesy Montana Legislature).

One of the vocal opponents to the Laurel site is the chairman of the Yellowstone County Commission, Mark Morse, who has criticized the state for taking advantage of the largest county’s residents because they have invested in facilities and programs that help those getting out of prison while receiving little support from the state itself.

“The devil is in the details. Without details, I can’t support this facility being in Yellowstone County and that is ashamed, because Montana is in dire need of additional mental health resources but without details, I am concerned that they are building this facility not for additional space for these mentally ill folks, but as a replacement for the current forensic facility … which the state has admitted they struggle to staff,” Morse said.

Some of the claims, including Morse’s, have become almost accepted as gospel, which led the state to create a fact-and-myth, question-and-answer style presentation for lawmakers and the public in Helena earlier this week. One of the slides addressed the concern that Laurel was just opening the door to a larger facility, but officials from Montana DPHHS detailed millions of dollars of investments at Galen and Warm Springs, including staffing, saying, “DPHHS has invested more than $75M in MSH and Galen since 2021, signaling no intention of shuttering either facility.”

City officials aren’t commenting on the concept on the advice of the city attorney who has expressed concerns that weighing in publicly on the issue could prejudice the project and lead to a protracted legal fight.

Other state government officials are as conspicuously silent as Laurel residents are vocal.

During the hours of testimony reviewed by the Daily Montanan, two of Laurel’s legislative delegation — Sen. Vince Ricci and Rep. Lee Deming, both Republicans — have been invoked frequently as staunch opponents of the project. They wrote a letter to Gov. Greg Gianforte stating their public opposition to the state project.

When contacted by the Daily Montanan, Ricci said the letter spoke for itself, while Deming said he wasn’t even willing to talk about the letter.

Ricci and Deming oppose the project for several reasons. Both reference meetings that were originally planned and scrapped, including one which was going to be hosted by the Laurel Chamber of Commerce which was cancelled after members of the public were invited, but the press prohibited, something that would be a violation of the state’s open meeting laws and constitution.

“We maintain that the meetings should have proceeded. If only to respond to legitimate community concerns. The state has a responsibility to engage directly with the Laurel community on an issue of this importance and long-term impacts,” the letter said.

Laurel residents have also targeted other leaders, including Gov. Greg Gianforte, to try and halt the project. However, the governor’s office did not respond to inquiries sent this week about whether he had concerns with the project or the location siting in Laurel.

Other sites had been in the running to host the new facility, including Hardin and Miles City. The state has said repeatedly that Montana — a huge state geographically — should have two facilities to serve the east and west portions of the state. Demand is certainly a part of that driver — currently Yellowstone County is housing 18 prisoners who are being held because there’s no availability at the state’s only facility in Galen.

Moreover, nearly three-out-of-every four people needing admission to the psychiatric facility east of the Continental Divide are from Yellowstone County, with officials saying without the facility being located there, it may just re-create one of the current concerns: The travel time transporting prisoners back and forth from the eastern half of the state to Galen, located between Butte and Missoula, along Interstate 90.

One official who is working on the project told the Daily Montanan that both the governor’s office as well as officials from the Department of Public Health and Human Services both agree that because of huge demand for services in Yellowstone County, locating the psychiatric hospital anywhere else would be a misuse of state resources.

“Finally, it is abundantly clear that our constituents do not want this facility built anywhere near our town,” the letter from the two Laurel legislators concluded. “This issue is splitting Laurel and causing bitter divisions that we believe will be long-lasting. The fight over placing this facility in Laurel is just getting started. We believe that the fight against the facility will continue and the costs to the state and money will continue to increase.”

Source link

Montana

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 12

Published

13 hours ago

March 12, 2026

Press Room

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 12

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

Published

1 day ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

It’s the talk of the town this week — powerful winds ripped the roof off Lincoln Elementary School on Sunday, leaving students, teachers, and residents in shock.

The incident has sparked concern among homeowners who are now worried about how such weather damage could impact their own homes—and what their insurance would cover.

According to Tauna Locatelli, owner of Advantage Insurance, most insurance policies have a set deductible for things like fire or theft, but wind and hail damage deductibles are often much higher, or even based on a percentage of a property’s value.

Quentin Shores reports – watch the video here:

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

“Right now our industry is going through a really challenging time, especially when it comes to wind and hail in Montana. Several carriers are going to a standard ‘all peril’ deductible for everything other than wind and hail. So, it could be $1,000 for all but wind and hail, $2,500 wind and hail,” Locatelli explained.

A deductible is the amount homeowners must pay before insurance covers the rest. For wind and hail, that deductible can be steep.

“Some companies are going 1 or 2% of a coverage value, so that’s the building value. If it’s insured for $500,000 and you have a 1% deductible, you’re looking at a $5,000 deductible for wind and hail, which is what we get in Montana,” Locatelli said.

It’s important for homeowners to know their deductible—if repairs cost less than the deductible, insurance won’t pay anything.

Filing small claims can also impact your rates; Locatelli said, “Because if you have a $3,000 patch job claim and you have a $5,000 deductible, you really don’t want to file that because you’re not going to get anything in. That claim is going to follow your insurance record for five years.”

Age of property factors in as well. If you have an older roof, insurance may not fully cover its replacement.

“You’ve now lived half the roof life. Well, insurance is about indemnity and putting you back in the same condition you were in before the loss. You can’t put a 16-year-old roof on a home, so at 16 years, they’ll now pay 50% of that roof instead of 100% because it’s already lived half of its life. And then it drops each year as it goes by,” Locatelli added.

The bottom line: Keep your property maintained, review your insurance policy, and think carefully before filing a claim—especially as Montana faces more intense weather.

Source link