CTC clarifies rules for uncommitted funds in ATP applications; staff to align LPP language with STIP guidance

At the California Transportation Commission's Oct. 1 Cycle 8 workshop, staff clarified the program's rules for projects that identify “uncommitted” matching or leveraged funds in ATP applications and logged an action item to align guidance language with State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) practices.

Who said what: Anya Allenbacher, Active Transportation Program manager at the Commission, explained the policy allowing uncommitted funds in two circumstances: when a project falls at the funding cutoff for an MPO component, or when an applicant uses the large infrastructure application and requests funding only for preconstruction phases while later phases are proposed as uncommitted. “Uncommitted funds can only be from a few sources,” Allenbacher said, listing competitive programs and federal discretionary grants as examples.

Questions from attendees focused on sequencing and documentation. Aaron Hoyt of the Nevada County Transportation Commission asked whether local funds such as RSTP or CMAQ need to be programmed in the FTIP at time of application, or only after a CTC award. Staff and other participants explained that a letter of commitment from an agency executive can be used at the application stage, but formal programming in the FTIP and governing‑body action will be required before allocation. In staff words: a board resolution and FTIP adoption documentation would be expected once a project is programmed for allocation.

Carl Anderson of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission raised a timing problem with Local Partnership Program (LPP) formulaic funds and overlapping fiscal cycles: agencies may have identified future LPP funds for fiscal years that are not yet in a given LPP cycle. Anderson said the draft guidance's current wording could be too constraining. Staff replied they will review STIP guidance language and seek to mirror its flexibility, and added an action item to revise Section 26 (committed and uncommitted funds) accordingly.

Other clarifications provided at the workshop - Projects that propose uncommitted funds must secure commitments for the phase by July 1 of the fiscal year in which that phase is programmed, or provide a contingency plan to address a funding shortfall. - Uncommitted sources permitted in applications include competitive discretionary grants and certain SB 1 programs; staff said local partnership formulaic funds are treated differently and agreed to refine language so year‑to‑year cycle misalignments do not unfairly block applicants. - Applicants should show uncommitted funds for future ATP cycles only for project phases not requested in the current application; these should be documented in the Project Programming Request (PPR).

No votes were taken. CTC staff recorded an action item to reconcile language on LPP formulaic funds with existing STIP guidance and to confirm expectations for FTIP programming and board actions. The clarification is intended to preserve sponsors' ability to show letters of commitment or executive‑level assurances at application time while retaining formal FTIP and governing‑body programming steps before allocation.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the article metadata below and are taken from the workshop transcript.