Second, the State asserts that its prior reporting included only occupied Housing Slots because tenants [] had died or moved out” in the early implementation phase, leaving no “few turnover of consequence to report. Def.’s Opp’n 23. But the State does not substantiate its assertion that turnover during that time was negligible. Also, the State began providing monthly reports in April 2014—nearly two years into implementation. Earlier State reports indicate that from August 2013 to January 2014, between 77 and 169 individuals occupied Housing Slots. Thus, it is unlikely that turnover was negligible, especially given that at least 17 individuals vacated their Housing Slots from April through August 2014. Lastly, based on a vague and uncorroborated affidavit from a State employee, the State claims that it changed the summary table of its monthly reports to present the total” of “running occupied and vacant Housing Slots at the Independent Reviewer’s request. Def.’s Opp’n 24. The State seems to argue that its of the Reviewer’s alleged request undermines the “accommodation” significance of the State’s early reporting of only occupied Housing Slots. Regardless of See id. whether the State later changed its reporting at the Reviewer’s request, the State’s prior conduct reflects its early interpretation that only occupied Housing Slots satisfy section III(B)(3). The Independent Reviewer Measures Compliance by Counting Only Occupied Housing Slots. The Independent Reviewer measures the State’s compliance with section III(B)(3) as the number of occupied Housing Slots on the annual compliance dates. 2016 Annual Rep. 24, 28 (Fig. 6), D.E. 23-9 (reporting that 650 individuals had their rental unit” and that the “retained State was 516 slots shy of meeting 2016 Housing filled unit obligation” of 1,166); 2015 “the Annual Rep. 8, D.E. 23-4. Notably, the Independent Reviewer explains that the exact “[f]illing number of slots as required in this Agreement or in any housing program requires refilling a substantial number of Housing Slots that are vacated over the course of eight years.” 2016
Second, the State asserts that its prior reporting included only occupied Housing Slots because “few tenants [] had died or moved out” in the early implementation phase, leaving no turnover of consequence to report. Def.’s Opp’n 23. But the State does not substantiate its assertion that turnover during that time was negligible. Also, the State began providing monthly reports in April 2014—nearly two years into implementation. Earlier State reports indicate that from August 2013 to January 2014, between 77 and 169 individuals occupied Housing Slots. Thus, it is unlikely that turnover was negligible, especially given that at least 17 individuals vacated their Housing Slots from April through August 2014. Lastly, based on a vague and uncorroborated affidavit from a State employee, the State claims that it changed the summary table of its monthly reports to present the “running total” of occupied and vacant Housing Slots at the Independent Reviewer’s request. Def.’s Opp’n 24. The State seems to argue that its “accommodation” of the Reviewer’s alleged request undermines the significance of the State’s early reporting of only occupied Housing Slots. See id. Regardless of whether the State later changed its reporting at the Reviewer’s request, the State’s prior conduct reflects its early interpretation that only occupied Housing Slots satisfy section III(B)(3). The Independent Reviewer Measures Compliance by Counting Only Occupied Housing Slots. The Independent Reviewer measures the State’s compliance with section III(B)(3) as the number of occupied Housing Slots on the annual compliance dates. 2016 Annual Rep. 24, 28 (Fig. 6), D.E. 23-9 (reporting that 650 individuals had “retained their rental unit” and that the State was 516 slots shy of meeting “the 2016 Housing filled unit obligation” of 1,166); 2015 Annual Rep. 8, D.E. 23-4. Notably, the Independent Reviewer explains that “[f]illing the exact number of slots as required in this Agreement or in any housing program requires refilling a substantial number of Housing Slots that are vacated over the course of eight years.” 2016
us_reply_nc_opp.docx