Anya, a CTC workshop presenter, outlined a proposal to use a mid‑cycle fund estimate to redistribute recovered Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds per the statutory component split.

The proposed change would create a second (mid‑cycle) fund estimate in August of odd‑numbered years to redistribute funds recovered from canceled projects, lapsed project phases and other savings. Under the proposal, recovered funds for the statewide and small urban/rural components would be programmed into those components’ contingency lists in the current cycle up to the mid‑cycle fund estimate total; any amounts that cannot be fully programmed would be held for the next program cycle. Staff said recovered funds for the MPO component would be made available in the subsequent program cycle because MPOs manage their own contingency lists and timelines.

Why this matters: the ATP distributes funds across three components (staff noted a 50% statewide, 40% MPO, 10% small urban/rural split). Stakeholders told the Commission they worried the current practice of applying project savings to the project last “on the line” could risk exceeding the statutory split as program years progress; the mid‑cycle estimate is intended to ensure redistributed savings follow the statutory allocation.

Stakeholder reactions and technical questions

Kenneth Kao of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission said he considered the approach “a nice middle ground” but asked what would happen to projects that end up partially funded “on the line” under the new scenario: would sponsors be left unfunded while waiting for mid‑cycle savings, expected to provide alternate funds, or be offered preconstruction‑only funding? Anya said staff were considering several options including under‑programming (leaving funds unprogrammed until mid‑cycle), asking sponsors to identify local or federal matching funds, or funding only preconstruction phases and returning to construction funding in a later competitive cycle if sponsors accept that path.

Other stakeholders urged limited flexibility for overprogramming at the MPO or regional level so sponsors have greater certainty; several participants suggested using historical average savings to estimate program capacity instead of a formal mid‑cycle reallocation. LA Metro and other commenters asked whether projects taken from contingency lists could change fiscal‑year requests or shift fund distribution; staff said the contingency lists and mid‑cycle timing would need further design but that contingency lists would be adopted at the time of programming and that unfunded contingency projects would need to reapply in the following cycle if not funded.

What the Commission recorded as next steps

CTC staff captured an action item to revisit the mid‑cycle redistribution/overprogramming discussion at a future workshop after stakeholders have time to digest the proposal and provide written feedback. Staff invited stakeholders to email comments to ATP staff and said new draft language would be circulated if the Commission decides to move forward.

The next procedural steps are that staff will refine options (including whether to allow limited overprogramming, whether to permit preconstruction funding for projects on the line, and how contingency lists will interact across components) and present draft language for stakeholder review at a later workshop.