Michelle Marks, transportation officer with Transportation and Public Works, briefed the Joint Sustainability Committee on a technical advisory review panel's (TARP) recommendations to reduce barriers to planting and maintaining street trees in Austin rights of way.

The TARP, formed under city code after a 2024 city council resolution, focused its analysis on street trees and produced 12 actionable recommendations to be phased into work plans, Marks said. “When we release the report in a couple of weeks, you’ll see much more detail,” Marks said.

The recommendations target four areas: regulatory foundations, permitting/process improvements, maintenance, and capital planning. Key regulatory suggestions include updating the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM) to treat street trees as part of the sidewalk corridor and revising the Standards Manual to provide standard drawings and preapproved options (soil volume, irrigation, soil cells) so applicants are not “stumbling in the dark.” Marks also recommended reviewing the Utility Criteria Manual (UCM) to look for opportunities to reduce separation clearances and better coordinate subgrade and above‑ground utility placement so trees can fit in constrained rights of way.

On species, the TARP proposes revising the city’s approved street‑tree species list to reflect a hotter, drier climate and to match species to micro‑contexts (soil volume, overhead utility constraints). Marks said the panel emphasized “right tree in the right place,” noting live oaks may not be appropriate under some overhead wires.

On maintenance, the TARP recommends eliminating the current requirement that developers execute a private license agreement for street trees in the right of way — a process developers have described as onerous — and then evaluating alternatives for long‑term upkeep. Marks told commissioners the options include: the city assuming maintenance (by contract or city crews), requiring adjacent property owners to maintain trees under code (the approach some cities use), or hybrid solutions using community groups, HOAs, or fee mechanisms. “We want to explore all of the options along that spectrum and figure out what’s the best fit for our community,” she said.

Marks said city staff need an asset inventory of existing street trees and their condition before a large‑scale maintenance program can be designed. She described the cost to staff and operate a city‑run program as substantial and noted preliminary back‑of‑the‑envelope maintenance estimates from Urban Forestry that could be “in the tens of millions a year,” on the order of $10–20 million annually.

The TARP also recommended a green‑infrastructure investment plan (to target infill planting and coordinate projects such as utility relocations) and urged that, once administrative and permitting updates are complete, street trees be included as baseline scope items in capital corridor projects.

Commissioners asked how the city will coordinate across departments. John Salinas, a member of the Design Commission, asked specifically about Austin Energy’s role. Marks said multiple departments — Austin Energy, Austin Water, development review and planning, and the city arborist/urban forestry — will need to be at the table and have expressed willingness to participate. Commissioners pressed for earlier right‑of‑way assessment during project reviews so design teams can “rough in” irrigation and leave plantable spaces when concrete work is done.

Several commissioners raised equity and funding questions. Anna Scott said other cities have used targeted investments, foundation grants and nonprofit partnerships to accelerate tree equity work in priority neighborhoods. Rodrigo (mayoral appointee, District 1) asked whether staff had resources to develop a green‑infrastructure investment plan; Marks said staff capacity exists for analysis and mapping but that a reliable citywide tree inventory remains a first step and could take time — though smaller, targeted inventories (for downtown, for example) might proceed sooner.

Commissioners suggested a range of funding tools to seed maintenance (maintenance fees on developments, inclusion in utility or transportation fees, grant and nonprofit partnerships) and recommended exploring volunteer and workforce programs (Austin Conservation Corps, infrastructure academy) for planting and upkeep.

The TARP’s final report and more detailed “cut sheets” of each recommendation will be distributed to commissions, followed by an interdepartmental memo to the mayor and council describing proposed work‑plan integration. Marks said TARP recommendations were already presented to the Council Mobility Committee in September and that staff will finalize a memo to council after the commission briefings.