Officials defend Laurel forensic mental health facility plan; say patients will not be discharged into community

State officials outlined the rationale, security features and staffing plan for a proposed 32‑bed forensic mental health facility in Laurel and sought to rebut circulating misconceptions that it would release patients into the community or be colocated with corrections facilities.

Need and function: DPHHS staff and the Board of Investments told the committee the existing forensic facility in Galen is undersized for statewide demand. "The proposed facility in Laurel will serve individuals involved in the criminal justice system… patients cannot voluntarily leave this facility, nor are they discharged into the community," a DPHHS presenter said, stressing the site would serve court‑ordered or sentenced individuals requiring forensic inpatient care.

Staffing and security: DPHHS staff projected 90–100 employees would be required to operate the facility 24/7 (clinical staff, psychiatric technicians, RNs and support personnel). The department listed security design elements typical for forensic hospitals—sally port doors, central command access control, 24/7 live video monitoring—and said staff would be trained in de‑escalation and behavioral management.

Site selection and community relations: Dan Villa (Board of Investments) described a 114‑acre parcel near Highway 10, emphasizing the acreage provides a buffer; he compared the siting to other secure behavioral health facilities located near residential areas. Villa said BOI examined infrastructure adequacy and projected utility costs and noted the site selection process considered aesthetic, security and long‑term asset value. He presented comparators such as Billings Clinic and Shodair to argue secure facilities can coexist with neighborhoods.

Economic and emergency‑services impact: DPHHS reported low historic EMS demand at comparable forensic sites (about one EMS call per year at the Galen facility) and said on‑site medical and security staff would reduce community impacts. Officials also noted continued investment in Warm Springs and Galen and denied plans to close or move existing civil psychiatric facilities.

Public concerns and myths addressed: Officials rejected several claims raised in community letters and analysis documents, including exaggerated staffing estimates and claims that the facility would place patients into local neighborhoods. BOI provided purchase details and argued that a state facility will become a stable local employer and pay utility and assessment fees like other large institutional customers.

Ending: Officials said community questions will continue to be answered and that buy/sell documents and geotechnical analysis are available to local partners on request. The committee did not make site approvals; the session served as an informational briefing and an opportunity for legislators and community representatives to raise concerns.