Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stip Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CTC reviews proposed 2026 STIP guidelines; debate centers on uncommitted federal discretionary funds and SB 1 timing
Summary
The CTC workshop covered proposed changes to the draft 2026 STIP guidelines that would treat projects relying on uncommitted federal discretionary funds differently and require contingency plans and earlier commitments; regional agencies raised concerns about SB 1 cycle timing, deletion risk, and practical match strategies.
At a July workshop the California Transportation Commission and Caltrans staff discussed proposed language for the 2026 STIP guidelines that would require projects programmed with uncommitted federal discretionary funds to provide risk analysis, contingency plans and earlier commitments, and would limit how long such projects remain in the STIP if funds are not secured.
Casey Gutierrez, STIP program manager at the CTC, presented draft language that would allow projects supported by uncommitted federal discretionary funds to be proposed but require “a plan to secure the funding commitment, explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and include a contingency plan to secure alternative funding,” and said that if uncommitted federal discretionary funds are not secured the project could be deleted from the STIP. Gutierrez told participants she intended the deadline for commitments to be six months prior to the year in which the project is programmed (a change from an earlier draft that referenced July 1) to give regions time to pursue alternatives and avoid projects sitting for a year before deletion.
Why it matters: attendees said the proposed timing and deletion rule could interfere with regional strategies that rely on multi‑cycle federal or SB 1 discretionary grants as match. Several regional participants described real cases from the 2024 cycle where projects programmed in earlier fiscal years needed more time to secure discretionary matches or risked losing funding if the award did not arrive in the STIP‑defined window.
Key points of debate and staff responses
- Deletion trigger and timing: staff initially proposed language tied to July 1 for commitments (consistent with SB 1 practice). After participant feedback, Gutierrez said the language would require commitments six months before the fiscal year in which the project is programmed, which she intended to align with the RTIP/ITIP submittal schedule and give regions a chance to seek alternatives or prepare STIP amendments rather than let projects sit.
- Alignment with SB 1 cycles: several attendees, including Rich and regional agency representatives, warned that SB 1 cycles and federal discretionary grant cycles do not align with the five‑year STIP windows; programming a project in the STIP’s later years (year 4 or 5) may be the only practical way to provide state match for a federal or SB 1 discretionary grant that a region intends to pursue in the following state cycle. Staff acknowledged the tension and said they would attempt to balance statutory STIP constraints, program delivery goals and regional grant strategies.
- PPM limits and share calculations: Gutierrez reiterated that statute limits Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) to “up to 5 percent” of a region’s formula shares, and explained the draft PPM calculation showing how previously programmed PPM in the 2024 STIP reduces a region’s new available PPM capacity in the 2026 distribution.
- Documentation requests: Gutierrez said she will require clearer RTP cross‑references in RTIPs (project ID or page number) to make staff verification less labor intensive; she also reminded regions that fact sheets must meet state and federal web accessibility standards.
Stakeholder suggestions and next steps: participants proposed several practical workarounds and clarifications: (1) schedule projects that rely on discretionary grants in later STIP years that match the grant award timing, (2) maintain early communication with CTC staff so projects can be amended rather than deleted, and (3) allow staff flexibility to reprogram or advance STIP shares where appropriate. Gutierrez said she would revise the draft language, circulate it to stakeholders and present the final guidelines for commission adoption at the August meeting.
Discussion versus decision: the workshop produced no formal policy change; the CTC will consider final guideline language at its August meeting after staff circulate revisions.
Bottom line: the draft guideline change that treats uncommitted federal discretionary funds as a special class attracted extensive regional concern about timing and deletion risk; CTC staff committed to revise the draft language, post materials and continue discussions before the August adoption vote.
