would allow the State to claim compliance even if no one occupies a Housing Slot at the conclusion of the Agreement. The structure of section III(B)(3) further demonstrates that the parties intended for the State to develop the systemic capacity to simultaneously support 3,000 individuals in Housing Slots by 2020. Section III(B)(3) provides a schedule of annual benchmarks by which the State’s obligations increase by 458 or 459 Housing Slots each year from the second year of the Agreement until its conclusion, when the State must Housing Slots to at least 3,000 “provide individuals.” This progressive schedule facilitates sustainable systemic growth, requiring See id. the State to expand its capacity each year by building on the foundation of prior years. Other sections of the Agreement also show that only occupied Housing Slots count toward compliance with section III(B)(3). For example, the State may temporarily suspend its efforts to inform individuals in adult care homes and psychiatric hospitals about supported housing if the list for Housing Slots exceeds twice the number of Housing Slots “interest required to be filled in the current and subsequent fiscal year.” S.A. § III(E)(2). The phrase to be filled” reflects that a Housing Slot is either occupied or vacant and supports the “required interpretation that only i.e. occupied, Housing Slots count toward compliance. “filled,” Furthermore, measuring compliance by counting only occupied Housing is the only interpretation that effectuates the Agreement’s stated purpose of achieving community integration. S.A. § I(C) (“[T]hrough this Agreement, the Parties intend that the goals of See community integration and self-determination will be achieved.”); § III(G)(7) see also id. (discussing intended outcomes of increased integration, stable integrated housing, “Agreement’s and decreased hospitalization and institutionalization”). When the parties’ purpose is
would allow the State to claim compliance even if no one occupies a Housing Slot at the conclusion of the Agreement. The structure of section III(B)(3) further demonstrates that the parties intended for the State to develop the systemic capacity to simultaneously support 3,000 individuals in Housing Slots by 2020. Section III(B)(3) provides a schedule of annual benchmarks by which the State’s obligations increase by 458 or 459 Housing Slots each year from the second year of the Agreement until its conclusion, when the State must “provide Housing Slots to at least 3,000 individuals.” See id. This progressive schedule facilitates sustainable systemic growth, requiring the State to expand its capacity each year by building on the foundation of prior years. Other sections of the Agreement also show that only occupied Housing Slots count toward compliance with section III(B)(3). For example, the State may temporarily suspend its efforts to inform individuals in adult care homes and psychiatric hospitals about supported housing if the “interest list for Housing Slots exceeds twice the number of Housing Slots required to be filled in the current and subsequent fiscal year.” S.A. § III(E)(2). The phrase “required to be filled” reflects that a Housing Slot is either occupied or vacant and supports the interpretation that only “filled,” i.e. occupied, Housing Slots count toward compliance. Furthermore, measuring compliance by counting only occupied Housing is the only interpretation that effectuates the Agreement’s stated purpose of achieving community integration. See S.A. § I(C) (“[T]hrough this Agreement, the Parties intend that the goals of community integration and self-determination will be achieved.”); see also id. § III(G)(7) (discussing “Agreement’s intended outcomes of increased integration, stable integrated housing, and decreased hospitalization and institutionalization”). When the parties’ purpose is