- 24 -
operations of petitioner in order to avoid the interruption
of the carrying on of a particular program or activity.
Respondent's argument is premised on the assertion that
there is "no evidence, other than petitioner's self-serving
statements, that there exists a separate adult daycare
grant program." According to respondent, petitioner's
funds are earmarked for Keswick's adult daycare program,
not for any grant program.
Respondent also argues that the adult daycare program
is not a substantial activity for Keswick, but, even if it
were, there is no evidence that the loss of petitioner's
funds would cause Keswick to interrupt or discontinue the
adult daycare program. To the contrary, respondent states
that for fiscal year 2000 petitioner's support represented
only 4.25 percent of Keswick's budget for the adult daycare
center. Respondent also points out that during 1999, when
the amount of Cuddeback funds used to provide grants
increased by $11,269, an increase of more than 70 percent
over the amount used during 1996, the adult daycare program
served 10 fewer participants (i.e., 149 in 1996 and 139
in 1999) and only 2 additional individuals received
"grants". Respondent further argues that petitioner's
support can be used, and was used in 1996, for purposes
other than the adult daycare program. Respondent concludes
from these facts that the adult daycare program does not
depend on petitioner's support and, without such support,
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011