ascertainable, as it is here, that purpose given great weight.” Restatement § 202(1); See “is 271 F. Supp. 2d at 851 (interpreting agreement to effectuate its purpose). Silicon Image, The State’s Prior Conduct Confirms that the Parties Intended to Count 2. Only Occupied Housing Slots. The conduct prior to this controversy confirms that the parties intended to measure compliance with section III(B)(3) by counting only the individuals occupying Housing Slots on given compliance dates. 762 F.2d at 1171–72 (holding See Mgmt Sys. Assocs., Inc., evidence highly persuasive); 134 N.C. App. at 200–01, 517 Crowder Constr. Co., S.E.2d at 186 (holding manner in which parties have carried out agreement indicative of how the parties construe the terms). During the two years of implementation, the State, consistent with the Agreement, regularly submitted reports to the United States and the Independent Reviewer that reported on compliance by counting only occupied Housing Slots. For example, the State described its July 2013 housing obligation as requiring individuals living in supported housing.” Jessica “100 Keith, N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., (Aug. 7, 2013) Ex. T, at 5. In Year One Summary January 2014, the State reported only the number of individuals as in housing.” “[c]onfirmed N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Transitions to Community Living Update as of January 6, Ex. U, at 1. 2014 Furthermore, a chronological review of the monthly reports reveals how the State’s interpretation evolved as it abandoned the parties’ intent in the face of significant noncompliance. Until August 2014, the State’s monthly reports were devoid of any references to vacant Housing Slots or individuals who had vacated their Housing Slots. Instead, the State reported on compliance by counting only occupied Housing Slots. July 2014 Monthly Rep. See Ex. B, at 2 (reporting net number of occupied Housing Slots in summary table as well as
ascertainable, as it is here, that purpose “is given great weight.” See Restatement § 202(1); Silicon Image, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 851 (interpreting agreement to effectuate its purpose). 2. The State’s Prior Conduct Confirms that the Parties Intended to Count Only Occupied Housing Slots. The conduct prior to this controversy confirms that the parties intended to measure compliance with section III(B)(3) by counting only the individuals occupying Housing Slots on given compliance dates. See Mgmt Sys. Assocs., Inc., 762 F.2d at 1171–72 (holding evidence highly persuasive); Crowder Constr. Co., 134 N.C. App. at 200–01, 517 S.E.2d at 186 (holding manner in which parties have carried out agreement indicative of how the parties construe the terms). During the two years of implementation, the State, consistent with the Agreement, regularly submitted reports to the United States and the Independent Reviewer that reported on compliance by counting only occupied Housing Slots. For example, the State described its July 2013 housing obligation as requiring “100 individuals living in supported housing.” Jessica Keith, N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Year One Summary (Aug. 7, 2013) Ex. T, at 5. In January 2014, the State reported only the number of individuals “[c]onfirmed as in housing.” N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Transitions to Community Living Update as of January 6, 2014 Ex. U, at 1. Furthermore, a chronological review of the monthly reports reveals how the State’s interpretation evolved as it abandoned the parties’ intent in the face of significant noncompliance. Until August 2014, the State’s monthly reports were devoid of any references to vacant Housing Slots or individuals who had vacated their Housing Slots. Instead, the State reported on compliance by counting only occupied Housing Slots. See July 2014 Monthly Rep. Ex. B, at 2 (reporting net number of occupied Housing Slots in summary table as well as
nc_iso_motion.docx