Stakeholders urge clearer LPP rules on cost savings, time extensions and audits at workshop

Stakeholders at the Transportation Commission’s Local Partnership Program workshop pressed staff to clarify how the program handles project savings, time extensions, nomination timing and audits — practical issues that agencies say affect whether funds are spent or lapse.

Several participants urged clearer, less prescriptive language about cost‑savings notices. "We'd want to be notified as early on in the process as we can be," Kayla Gy, assistant program manager, told the group, adding that the notification need not include a final dollar amount. Stakeholders including Jillian and Lewis J (OCTA) asked that the guidelines specify acceptable notice formats (email is currently sufficient) and suggested adding illustrative language or a template to reduce confusion among planners who submit nomination packets only every few cycles.

Time‑use of funds and time‑extension rules repeatedly surfaced. Staff said extensions are allowed for unforeseen, out‑of‑control events and generally are limited to one extension per step; they cautioned against programming projects for later cycles if applicants already know a later completion date to avoid risking lapses. Jose Luis argued that programming and allocation in the same commission meeting could be more efficient for applicants; staff responded that backend Caltrans workload and system entry constraints often make same‑meeting allocations impractical.

Audits and outcome reporting were also raised. Kathy described a multi‑year audit where auditors requested measures — including vehicle‑miles‑traveled analysis — that were not required in earlier cycles, and said preparing audit responses consumed significant agency time. "They asked us for our VMT analysis and VMT wasn't required in 2018," she said. Staff responded that outcome and benefits language has evolved across cycles and that they will review guidance and past iterations to identify clarifications that could reduce audit burden.

Other transparency recommendations included posting timely‑use‑of‑funds deadlines and remaining balances on the public list of programmed formulaic projects and creating a prep calendar or nomination‑packet schedule to encourage agencies to submit packets 60–90 days before a commission meeting. Several attendees recommended mock nomination packets and formatting guidance to help new planners meet documentation requirements.

What staff will do next: record and pursue action items — revisit cost‑savings language to clarify notification and acceptable formats; consider a published prep calendar and nomination packet template; review whether the public programmed‑project list should display timely‑use dates and remaining balances; and examine outcomes/benefits language to reduce audit confusion.

The workshop closed with an invitation to email additional suggestions and a pledge to post slides and recordings to the LPP web page.