Every formal request, legal document, and official response — organized so the community can follow exactly what we've asked for and what we've received back.
These are documents that Laurel C.A.R.E.D. has formally drafted and submitted to government officials on behalf of our community. We publish them here in full so every resident can read exactly what we've asked for, what we've proposed, and what we've received back. Nothing is paraphrased or summarized away.
March 9, 2026 — BOI & DPHHS presentations before the oversight committee · March 10, 2026 — Public comment period / committee conduct
Documents and analysis in response to the presentations given by the Board of Investments (BOI) and the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) before the Legislative Oversight Committee on March 9, 2026, and addressing committee conduct during the public comment period on March 10, 2026.
[Document title — coming soon]
[Description]
Coming soon[Document title — coming soon]
[Description]
Coming soonMonday, March 16, 2026 · 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM · Laurel High School Auditorium
City Attorney confirmed unable to attend due to a prior family commitment. She will be providing a written statement and information for the community, and we are excited to work with her to prepare that for Laurel.
Invitations sent to Yellowstone County Commissioners, Laurel Public Schools Superintendent, and the school board.
Invitation sent to Forrest Sanderson, expert in city planning and a longstanding resource for the City of Laurel. We are hoping he will be available to speak to the community on city growth, growth policy, zoning, and related topics.
CAO Kurt Markegard informed city planner Forrest Sanderson that he did not have permission to speak at the town hall — despite permission already having been granted to Public Works Director Matt Wheeler. Laurel C.A.R.E.D. sent a demand email to Markegard CC'd to all ward representatives, City Clerk, City Attorney, and the DOJ contact, requesting an immediate explanation and legal basis. A follow-up call was placed and recorded.
Statement Pending
We are waiting on statement verification from the city of Laurel and interim planner.
Submitted by: Laurel C.A.R.E.D. | To: Laurel City Council (all members), City Attorney Braukmann, City Clerk Kelly Strecker | CC: Mayor Waggoner, CAO Markegard, Montana Attorney General's Office
On March 6, 2026, Laurel C.A.R.E.D. submitted a consolidated formal document to the full Laurel City Council, City Attorney, and City Clerk — with copies to the Mayor, CAO, and the Montana Attorney General's Office. The document addresses three distinct matters in a single submission:
The Montana Attorney General's Office was copied on this submission. This document is part of the public record.
Consolidated Submission — Public Records Request, Investigation Follow-Up & Recall Statement
Submitted March 6, 2026 to the Laurel City Council, City Attorney, and City Clerk. CC: Mayor, CAO, Montana Attorney General.
Download PDF →Submitted by: Shawna Hopper & Jennifer Lorenz | To: Yellowstone County Attorney's Office
Shawna Hopper and Jennifer Lorenz formally submitted a recall petition for Mayor Dave Waggoner to the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office for approval. The county attorney has 7 business days to approve or dismiss the petition. If approved, organizers must collect 840 registered voter signatures within 90 days.
Recall Petition Circulation Sheet — Mayor Dave Waggoner
Formal recall petition for Mayor Dave Waggoner submitted to the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office for approval.
Download PDF →Submitted by: Laurel C.A.R.E.D. | To: Mayor Waggoner, CAO Markegard | CC: City Attorney Braukmann, Attorney General Knudsen, Commissioner of Political Practices
A formal written notice submitted after three unanswered attempts to reach Mayor Waggoner and CAO Markegard by voicemail and phone message. The letter demands written responses to four distinct matters by end of business February 27, 2026: the pending request to place the School Protection Buffer Emergency Ordinance on the March 3 City Council agenda; the improper method used to produce the Mayor's communications in response to the public records request; community questions regarding the hiring of three of the Mayor's children to city positions in potential violation of Montana's anti-nepotism statute (MCA 2-2-302); and a direct inquiry into Mayor Waggoner's capacity and intention to actively discharge the mandatory duties of his office.
The letter was copied to the Office of the Montana Attorney General and the Commissioner of Political Practices, placing both oversight bodies on formal notice of these concerns.
Formal Written Notice — February 25, 2026
Full letter to Mayor Waggoner and CAO Markegard covering all four matters: emergency ordinance agenda request, records production method, employment of family members, and Mayor's capacity to serve.
Download PDF →Friday Morning Reminder — February 27, 2026 (9:59 AM)
Email from Elizabeth Gilg to Mayor Waggoner and CAO Markegard on the morning of the February 27 deadline, documenting their continued silence and placing additional matters on the record. This is the email CAO Markegard responded to.
Mayor Waggoner and Mr. Markegard,
Today is the deadline I set in my formal written notice of February 25, 2026. I have not received a response from either of you on any of the four matters raised in that letter. I am writing now to document that fact and to put several additional matters on the record before this deadline expires.
On the Emergency Ordinance Request
This request is not new. On February 17, committee member Kris Vogele formally requested at City Council that a protective emergency ordinance be placed on the agenda. No response was given, and the item was not placed on the February 24 agenda. On February 24, Laurel C.A.R.E.D. again formally requested, in public comment, on the record, that the School Protection Buffer Emergency Ordinance be placed on the March 3, 2026 City Council agenda. That request was followed by my formal written notice on February 25 demanding a written response by end of business today.
Neither of you has responded.
On Your Delegation to the City Attorney
The only member of city government who has communicated with constituents on any of these matters is City Attorney Braukmann, who stated explicitly in her own emails that she was not authorized by either of you to do so. She is engaging with the community on her own initiative, filling a vacuum that you are choosing to leave open.
I want to be precise about this: City Attorney Braukmann is your legal advisor. Her statutory duties under MCA 7-4-4604 are confined to legal opinions, drafting, and litigation. There is no provision in the Laurel City Charter, the Montana Code Annotated, or any other governing authority that authorizes either of you to route constituent communications through your city attorney as a substitute for your own engagement. She is not your spokesperson. She is not your shield.
I also note that the quasi-judicial communication restrictions that sometimes limit what officials can say apply to City Council members, who function as a quasi-judicial body when proposals come before them for decision. Those restrictions do not apply to the Mayor, and they do not apply to the CAO. You have no legal cover for your silence on these matters.
On Mr. Markegard's Dual Role
Mr. Markegard, you serve as both CAO and the city's contracted city planner. City Attorney Braukmann noted in her correspondence that she spent two hours this week in consultation with the contracted city planner on the exact proposals you have declined to acknowledge to the public. You are not uninformed. You are not unavailable. You are choosing not to respond to the constituents of Laurel while actively participating in the process behind the scenes. That is a choice, and it is one the community is now aware of.
On the Public Records Request
To date, we have not received copies of the actual requests submitted to the city's IT department in connection with outstanding public records demands. We cannot verify that those requests were submitted, what parameters were used, or whether the search was conducted appropriately. We continue to expect production of the underlying IT search documentation.
On the Nepotism and Capacity Matters
Mayor Waggoner, you have not responded to the question raised in my February 25 letter regarding the employment of three of your children in city positions, including in the wastewater department where you previously worked, in potential violation of MCA 2-2-302. You have not responded to the question of your capacity and intention to actively discharge the mandatory duties of your office under MCA 7-3-4320.
These questions were not asked carelessly. They were asked because the community is asking them, because they are matters of public record, and because the silence from your office on issues of this magnitude is no longer something this community is prepared to accept without a formal written record.
What We Are Asking
I am asking, again, for written responses to the four matters raised in my February 25 letter. I am also asking that the School Protection Buffer Emergency Ordinance be placed on the March 3, 2026 City Council agenda, or that you provide a written explanation of why it will not be. YOU — Not City Attorney Braukmann. Both of you have exhausted all community tolerance for your dereliction of duty.
The community of Laurel is watching. The Attorney General's office and the Commissioner of Political Practices have been on notice since February 25. We will continue to pursue every available avenue until these matters receive the attention they are owed.
I have and will continue to CC all City Council members on every email that I send to your office. Laurel is not a "Mayor Run City."
You get what you give.
With neither reservation nor respect,
— Elizabeth Gilg, Resident of Laurel and Yellowstone County, Montana | Laurel C.A.R.E.D. | laurelcared.com
CAO Markegard Response — February 27, 2026 (4:29 PM)
First direct email response from CAO Kurt Markegard to Elizabeth Gilg. This is the first communication received from any city official other than the City Attorney in response to CARED's formal requests.
Elizabeth Gilg,
I am emailing you back to notify you that the city council workshop meeting agenda was posted yesterday. The discussion about the emergency ordinance proposal was added to the agenda yesterday for discussion. Please see the attached meeting link below for the agenda for March 3rd, 2026.
I wanted to inform you that I am not the contracted planner. I assist with the contracted planner. The City Attorney was in contact with the contracted planner to discuss the emergency ordinance proposal and they did not include me in that call. I wanted to make you aware that the call was between the two of them. I have had discussions with the City Attorney briefly on this matter. I expect for more discussions to take place on this proposal.
Also added to the March 3rd City Council agenda is a discussion item for reviewing the schedule of fees and charges for records request. The request to add it to the agenda was made by staff and the decision to add it to the agenda was made by the mayor. It is on the agenda so that the city council can discuss the options for the schedule of fees and charges for public records requests. This schedule of fees and charges was set by City Council resolution and therefore it was added to the agenda for them to discuss next week.
I am fully aware of the concerns of the citizens, and I wanted to let you know that I am listening and taking the community's concerns seriously. I spend every day thinking about them. I offered to meet with the press and the public after 5pm on January 27th, 28th, and had to cancel the 29th for personal reasons. I asked the mayor that night to approve me speaking to the public and he agreed to let me do it, but this was a last-minute decision right before the meeting started. I had no discussion with the mayor on what I might say other than I wanted to be responsive. I also told the City Attorney I wanted to stay after the meeting for discussion and the City Attorney even offered to stay with me. I declined that offer and spoke with three citizens and a Billings Gazette Reporter until almost 11pm. I had the emails to and from the BOI in my hand and at the table to discuss them. I even asked the Billings Gazette reporter if he wanted my BOI emails to take with him and the reporter told me that he already had them. On the night of the 28th, I went and sat in the Council Chambers at 5pm and stayed for about 45 minutes. Not one person came to speak with me, so I left to go home.
Immediately after the January 27th city council meeting, I became aware of slander in social media. I was also made aware that week, that a person was waiting for me at an appointment that only a few people knew about and I then started thinking about personal safety. I have never had safety concerns in the last 20 years until that week.
— Kurt | cityoflaurelmontana.com/meetings
Elizabeth Gilg Reply to CAO Markegard — February 27, 2026 (9:58 PM)
Elizabeth Gilg's response to CAO Markegard, addressing the notification failure, raising questions about the division of city planning duties and compensation, and documenting CARED's commitment to accountability.
Kurt,
Thank you for letting me know the emergency ordinance proposal has been added to the March 3rd agenda. I do want to note that the agenda was posted Thursday, and my follow-up this morning was the first communication I received about it. Going forward, I would appreciate proactive notification when action is taken in response to a direct request, rather than learning of it only after following up on a deadline. Regarding the records request fees being on the March 3 agenda, I was already made aware of that at the February 24th city council meeting by the City Attorney. You were at that meeting.
I genuinely appreciate you clarifying that you are not the contracted city planner and that you assist with that role. As I've said at city council meetings, I'm new to this process and I always welcome accurate information. I was mistaken, and I appreciate the correction.
That said, the clarification does raise questions I would like answered. If you are compensated in part for city planning duties, including your role with the planning board and LURA, and there is separately a contracted city planner performing the substantive planning work, I think the community deserves a clear explanation of how those responsibilities are divided and how both positions are funded.
Regarding the January 27th and 28th, I addressed this directly at a city council meeting and I want to reiterate what I said then: expecting the community to come to you, on your schedule, to review records that you produced yourself is not transparency. Transparency is proactive. It does not require the public to seek it out on your terms. I also want to be direct with you: this is not the first time you have offered this as a defense, and the repetition of the same rehearsed talking points, regardless of what question is being asked, does not read as genuine engagement. It reads as perception management.
On the subject of social media and personal safety: I am not going to engage with that at length. What I will say is that when public officials are not transparent with their community, people are left to draw their own conclusions. That is not something I can control, and frankly, it is a foreseeable consequence of the communication failures we have been documenting. You forfeited the right to expect sympathy when you prioritized this proposal over the safety of our children. The community did not create this situation. You did.
C.A.R.E.D. will continue to document and share all verified facts we come across in this process and will keep pushing for answers and accountability.
The outstanding concerns from our February 25th formal notice remain. I look forward to the March 3rd discussion and expect that the substantive questions, not just the procedural ones, will be addressed at that time.
— Elizabeth Gilg, Resident of Laurel and Yellowstone County, Montana | Laurel C.A.R.E.D. | laurelcared.com
Submitted to: Laurel City Council & Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners
At the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting, Laurel C.A.R.E.D. formally submitted a request that the City Council adopt an emergency zoning ordinance establishing a one-mile School Protection Buffer — prohibiting any correctional or secure detention facility from being located within one mile of any school, park, residential zone, church, or licensed daycare. We also requested a companion interim resolution from the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners to ensure the same protection applies in unincorporated county land surrounding Laurel.
We requested that this ordinance be placed on the agenda for the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting for immediate consideration and adoption.
Emergency Ordinance Request Letter
Cover letter to City Council and County Commissioners — the formal request and legal argument for immediate adoption.
Download PDF →Draft City Emergency Ordinance
CARED-drafted ordinance for the City of Laurel establishing the one-mile School Protection Buffer under MCA 76-2-306. Prepared for City Attorney review.
Download PDF →Draft County Interim Zoning Resolution
Companion resolution for the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners under MCA 76-2-206, covering unincorporated land in the joint zoning jurisdictional area. Prepared for County Attorney review.
Download PDF →Email to Yellowstone County Commissioners — February 25, 2026
Direct inquiry to Commissioners White, Waters, and Morse asking whether the City of Laurel had contacted the County about CARED's collaborative emergency ordinance request, and inviting the Board to consider the companion interim zoning resolution.
Download PDF →City Attorney Response — February 24, 2026 (11:22 PM)
Email from Civil City Attorney Michele L. Braukmann to committee members Kris and Elizabeth Gilg, copied to Mayor Waggoner, CAO Markegard, and City Council President and Vice President.
Kris:
I appreciated your comments this week, as well as last week, on options available for the City of Laurel. I've largely been "quiet" on these issues publicly, because most of my work is "done behind the scenes." But, based upon where we are today, I believe a full and complete and transparent path forward is necessary.
I can only speak for myself, but I have reviewed everything that you put together. Many, many times. And, in fact, the initial proposal is one that I was very well-aware was an option available to the City. Your presented option tonight is not one that I'm immediately familiar with, but I will do the work needed the next few days to assess its viability.
A large portion of what you have proposed, I believe, is entirely legal in nature. That said, the idea of proposing these matters to CC has to come from full approval and recommendation from the Executive Branch. I am working on trying to figure out whether and to what extent the Executive Branch is willing to present these matters to CC. I don't know the Executive Branch's position on this matter, and I'm working on trying to get a handle on that. I would ask you to reach out to CAO Markegard and Mayor Waggoner on what their intentions are in this regard. When I receive direction from them, I will do the work that I need to in order to ensure that what is presented to CC allows CC to make the decisions that they need. I cannot present options to CC without the Executive Branch asking me to do so. And, when I do, I need to make sure that those recommendations, I believe, are fully defensible.
I respect your comments, and I appreciate all of the work that you have done. I would like to ask for you to provide me any additional information that you have that the proposed two alternatives that you have suggested are legally defensible. Because, at the end of the day, I believe that an affirmative stance from the City of Laurel on this matter creates legal liability for the City. And, that is what I'm hesitant to recommend. I will stand by my legal recommendation on this issue, but I'd like your feedback, because I believe your comments are well-researched and well-explored. I am not unwilling to recommend to the City to take affirmative steps, but I also want everyone to recognize the liability exposure that we are walking ourselves into, as it relates to the State's decisions on this matter.
This City is being threatened with lawsuits "on both sides of things" right now. It was abundantly clear that the constituent path tonight is a lawsuit. The State is likewise creating this same narrative. So, the City is in a "no win situation" and while I don't think that is a reason to not make a valid decision here, and stick with that decision, I want to be very careful and cognizant of what we're all working through.
I don't think that the public recognizes the impact of lawsuits upon this City. Any singular lawsuit can increase our loss ratios in such manner that makes insurance coverage very expensive. I've defended multiple lawsuits for Laurel, versus hiring outside Legal Counsel appointed by your insurance carrier, in order to save this City money. I don't want this City exposed to any lawsuits, not only because they have a significant impact upon limited budgetary issues, but because I believe they are destructive for our public.
I am working very hard to ensure that the constituents are heard, that we are charting the best path forward, but I cannot do that with liability exposure for the City. I welcome your feedback on this issue, because I think you have fully researched it. I have also, and I'm very torn on what to recommend here. This is not a "black and white issue." There are a lot of complicated things involved. I'd like to discuss your thoughts and strategy on this issue.
It does not serve Laurel well, in the entire scheme of things, if we expose ourselves to a lawsuit from the State. And, it does not serve the City of Laurel well to be threatened with lawsuits from our populus, because that just makes people more afraid to act — and right now, action is needed.
Please let me know if you'd be willing to meet and discuss your proposal in more detail. Or, you are welcome to email me your thoughts. Or call me. I'm available. I want an outcome here that is going to best serve our community.
As I said, I have researched both of the options that you've presented, and I can speak about them more fully when we discuss further or meet, if you are willing to do that. At this point, I'm inclined to request an AG's Opinion, but I also know, in thirty years of doing this, the AG's Office won't speak out on this, because they believe it is an "advisory opinion," and the AG's Office doesn't provide those opinions.
I am happy to stand behind any recommendation that I provide, but I want to make sure that I fully understand your perspective. Three minutes for someone to speak is not fully informing me, nor CC, nor the Executive Branch. I would like to talk with you about how you see the position that you are recommending to be fully defensible in any State action against the City in a possible future lawsuit. Because, at the end of the day, if we take steps as a City that stop the State action, and we are sued by the State, we all have to be accountable for the impact of that.
I do want to state that I wasn't given authorization from the Mayor or Kurt to send this email, but at this point, I'm trying to get a handle on issues that I'm struggling to get accomplished. Please understand that my comments are not "the City's comments." They are my own, as the City Attorney. I want to work through a better path forward, and I want to get that done in a way that protects the City resources (which in any lawsuit, will be diminished) and addresses constituent concerns.
Would you have time to meet on this matter? I do not believe we are at the point to present this matter to CC this next Cycle, but perhaps, by the next, we can all agree on a path forward for the City and the citizens in this community? Or, I'm happy to schedule a call or email back and forth on things. I try to be very responsive to emails. Sometimes, I'm delayed by a day or so, but I have always put in the commitment for my Clients (and their constituents) that I will respond within 24 hours or less, because I believe in that premise in my practice.
I make the commitment to you that I will have a formalized Legal Recommendation to the Executive Branch and CC on this matter in the next week or so. But, I would really appreciate hearing your perspective. And, you are welcome to invite anyone else to provide that feedback. I don't want to debate the purposes or intentions of the MHF, nor would that be appropriate. That is not the purpose of this Discussion. It is to discuss the legalities, as you see them, on any Resolutions/Ordinances to be proposed to CC that they may consider, if the Executive Branch presented them to CC. I want to make sure that I have heard your perspective on the legal issues involved. I want to make sure that, if the Executive Branch agrees, and I propose to CC that we work through an immediate Resolution/Ordinance, we all feel like that is fully legally defensible.
I am doing my best here, and I hope that you see that. I think your work on the "legal side of things" is very valid and important. I'm paying attention to it. I just need some additional thoughts from you on how you believe this would impact the State's perspective in relationship to the City. And, if you don't have any, I fully appreciate and understand that. I completely understand my job is to make a recommendation to the City on how to handle these issues, and I, and I alone, have to be responsible for those recommendations. But, I appreciate your insight on these issues, and I want to make sure that I have thought through everything that you are defining.
I am copying our Mayor and CAO on these issues, as well as CC President and Vice President, because I'm trying to keep everyone as informed as possible, as we work through some difficult issues.
Thanks so much for your work on things.
— Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney, City of Laurel | civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov | 406.671.4333
Elizabeth Gilg Reply to City Attorney — February 25, 2026 (12:09 AM)
Elizabeth Gilg to Michele L. Braukmann, forwarding the complete CARED document package.
Michele,
I didn't realize that I had not sent the rest of our request to you. I hope these provide what you had in mind. This is CARED's complete request, as well as sample drafts of the resolution and ordinance that we are requesting from both the City of Laurel and Yellowstone County. We hope this assists the City and County in returning control of this matter to the community of Laurel.
— Elizabeth Gilg, on behalf of Laurel C.A.R.E.D.
City Attorney Follow-Up to Elizabeth — February 25, 2026 (12:18 AM)
Reply from Civil City Attorney Michele L. Braukmann to Elizabeth Gilg.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your response on this.
I will do my part to ensure that the City is addressing things. I am hopeful for a plan ahead for the City. I will commit to making sure we can evaluate the merits of these proposals. I am unsure if the Mayor and Kurt will put this in front of CC this next Cycle. I ask them to do so. But, if the timing issue cannot be met by them, my commitment to you is that an answer will be provided by this next cycle.
I am hopeful that the Mayor and Kurt will respond to you on how to best move this matter forward. I welcome all of your feedback.
I appreciate your work and commitment to issues that matter. The City is hearing you.
— Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney, City of Laurel | civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov | 406.671.4333
Kris Vogele Follow-Up to City Attorney — February 26, 2026 (11:45 AM)
Email from committee member Kris Vogele to Michele L. Braukmann, with case law attachments supporting a growth policy moratorium approach. Copied to Elizabeth Gilg.
Hello,
Please see attached documents in support of a current emergency or interim ordinance on a moratorium on annexation, zoning, and subdivision matters while the city reviews, plans and implements a growth policy.
Should anyone want to review one of the latest moratoriums that was enacted by a Montana city (Missoula) you can do a search for some of the articles found online.
I believe this is an opportunity for our city to fully focus its energy on getting our growth policy in line with what is truly best for the future expansion and economic well-being of our community.
I am available for a call after 3pm today. 406-697-6215.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
— Kris Vogele
Note: This email included attachments with case law examples supporting the legal defensibility of the moratorium approach.
City Attorney Response to Kris — February 26, 2026 (1:19 PM)
Reply from Civil City Attorney Michele L. Braukmann to Kris Vogele, acknowledging the case law attachments and committing to a decision by the next City Council cycle.
Kris:
Thank you. I appreciate your work on this.
I ask that you give me some space to analyze and assess the issues involved. This is not going to get done this next day. It's not because I'm not working very hard on things, it is because there are a lot of moving parts in the City of Laurel right now, and I need to make sure that my recommendations on this matter are fully researched and reasoned. This will not be on the CC Agenda this next week. I understand your frustration in that regard. But, I cannot make a viable recommendation to CC without my own time and work that I know that my recommendation is valid. I'm working very hard here, and I assure you of that. I'm troubled that people are attacking me online right now, because I've done nothing other than show up and try to get the work done. I am researching everything you proposed. I sat in on a 2 hour long conversation with our contracted City Planner on this today. I am doing my part. I'm trying to create a situation that both protects our constituents and avoids liability.
I am going to try to give you this assurance. A decision will be made this next CC Cycle on how the City intends to proceed on this matter. I ask the Mayor and CAO to confirm the same.
— Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney, City of Laurel | civilattorney@laurel.mt.gov | 406.671.4333
Submitted by: Laurel C.A.R.E.D. | To: Mayor Waggoner, CAO Markegard, City Attorney Braukmann, Clerk/Treasurer Strecker, and all City Council members
A formal public records demand submitted by Laurel C.A.R.E.D. under Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution and MCA § 2-6-1001 et seq. The letter requests IT search records related to prior records requests submitted by Laurel residents Sam Mayes and Shawna Hopper, demands proactive public disclosure of all facility-related records, and includes a formal legal objection to the City's fee estimates.
The City had been charging $50/hr for staff, $150/hr for IT, and $250/hr for attorney review — rates that Montana law caps at a flat $25/hr maximum for all personnel combined. The letter demands the fee estimate be withdrawn and recalculated in compliance with state law.
Public Records Demand Letter
The full formal demand, including the records request, fee objection, legal citations, and request for proactive public disclosure.
Download PDF →City Attorney's Response
Email from Civil City Attorney Michele Braukmann acknowledging receipt, noting the Clerk-Treasurer is out of office, and promising a decision on the fee issue by Tuesday/Wednesday of the following week.
Download PDF →Submitted by: Laurel C.A.R.E.D. Committee | To: Laurel City Council | Signed by CARED committee members
A formal letter signed by members of the Laurel C.A.R.E.D. committee and submitted to the full City Council, requesting immediate authorization of an independent investigation into the conduct of Mayor Dave Waggoner and CAO Kurt Markegard regarding the proposed state forensic mental health facility. The letter cites five specific documented concerns drawn from public records, and requests a 60–90 day investigation with public disclosure of findings.
Request for Independent Investigation — February 10, 2026
Formal letter to City Council covering five documented concerns: unauthorized communications, exclusion of elected representatives, contradictory statements, unexplained property selection, and oath of office questions.
Read full letter →