Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lpp Processes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders press CTC staff for clearer nomination, reporting and audit processes in LPP guideline update
Summary
At a CTC LPP workshop, stakeholders urged clearer nomination templates, a public programming schedule, time‑of‑use dates, and clearer audit/outcome language after one attendee described a prolonged audit experience; staff said they will consider edits and provide office hours.
Assistant program manager Kayla Giese asked stakeholders whether a standalone LPP formulaic nomination and programming schedule would be helpful and solicited input on a prep calendar and nomination packet format. Multiple attendees urged more explicit schedules or templates: Jose Luis recommended a mock nomination packet and said the multiple‑meeting sequencing (programming, amendment, allocation) can be onerous; Kayla said staff will consider a template and review appendices that list packet requirements.
Stakeholders also recommended that the public program‑of‑projects list include use‑of‑funds deadlines and remaining balances to help monitor timely use and lapsing funds. Ben said showing ‘‘use of fund deadlines on it’’ would be useful; Kayla and Ward agreed to explore adding those fields and to consider a ‘‘prior column’’ format to control fiscal‑year proliferation in the public spreadsheet.
On time extensions, Ward explained the rules and emphasized extensions are for unforeseen issues: "you get 1 time extension per type of time extension," and agencies should program for longer completion times at allocation if known. OCTA’s Louis Chow asked whether email is sufficient notification; Kayla confirmed email is sufficient and said staff will clarify that in the guidelines.
Kathy, an attendee, recounted a lengthy audit of a 2018 formulaic project in which auditors repeatedly requested measures (including a VMT analysis) that were not required at that time; she said the audit consumed substantial agency time. "They asked us for our VMT analysis, and VMT wasn't required in 2018," she said. Ward and Kayla acknowledged the concern and said they will review guideline language and prior iterations to reduce confusion for auditors and agencies.
Staff captured action items including rewording section 23 (cost savings) for clarity, considering whether programming and allocation can be combined where feasible, adding remaining balance/use‑of‑funds dates to the public list, exploring a prior‑column format for the public spreadsheet, and reviewing past guideline language that may create conflicting audit expectations. Office hours will be available for one‑on‑one technical assistance between February and May.
