Anchorage Assembly approves $750K True North grant after amendments fail and crisis-care dispute divides members

The Anchorage Assembly approved a $750,000 Community Development Block Grant to True North Recovery Inc. on Tuesday for a Fairview behavioral health facility. The 8-3 vote came after two separate amendments seeking written conditions on the grant both failed, the first on a 4-7 vote and the second on a 6-5 vote, and after a floor debate in which members disputed whether True North had committed to keeping crisis care off-site.

Debate over crisis care restrictions

True North founder and CEO Carl Soderstrom told the Assembly he could not sign a contract requiring him to turn someone away. "Somebody walks up to our front door and says, I need help, I'm not turning them away," Soderstrom said. He called contractual language restricting crisis care "frankly appalling" and said the municipality's definition of crisis "really encompassed the entirety of the population that we serve."

The administration and several members argued that True North had revised its model after months of community outreach and did not intend to operate a crisis center at the site. Mayor LaFrance asked Soderstrom to confirm her understanding that the facility would not become a business to provide crisis care, and he agreed, even if staff could not turn away someone in acute need.

Vice Chair Daniel Volland, who represents Fairview and had co-sponsored the first amendment, said the statements on the floor broke a commitment he believed True North had made. "I am flabbergasted and offended," Volland said. "We had multiple conversations where you intimated to us as the representatives of this neighborhood that you would not provide crisis care at this location. You described the model that you described here tonight, but now you're saying, oh no, we will provide crisis care." Volland voted no on the grant.

Several members also tied their concerns to Fairview's history of concentrated services and prior Assembly policy. Volland noted a 2018 Assembly resolution calling for a dispersed, scattered-site model and said the neighborhood had repeatedly been asked to absorb region-serving facilities without adequate community input.

The municipal attorney raised legal and practical concerns about both amendments. Conditioning grant approval on a good neighbor agreement could give either party leverage to hold funding hostage. A separate memorandum of understanding with the health department would be difficult to draft and enforce once the grant agreement concluded.

Assembly Member Kameron Perez-Verdia, representing another district, opposed the amendments. "I have not seen an organization go above and beyond like this, go to every community council and respond to every person," Perez-Verdia said. "We want you in this community. We need you in this community."

Audit discussed during debate

A concurrent internal audit of CDBG grant administration, accepted the same evening, found that project goals are not always met and subrecipient reporting requirements are frequently not satisfied. Assembly Member Scout, one of the district members who co-sponsored the amendments, cited the audit on the record as motivating her push for written guardrails, saying it showed why verbal commitments alone were insufficient.

The mayor also noted on the record that the administration had changed its process so that future grant awards involving behavioral health services or other community concerns would be flagged earlier for public engagement. She acknowledged that the convergence of the HUD action plan timeline and the site selection had created an unusually compressed process.

What comes next

A motion for immediate reconsideration failed 4-7. The good neighbor agreement between True North and the Fairview Community Council was still being negotiated at the time of the vote, and that process continues outside the Assembly's formal action.