Council committee tables proposal to separate parks superintendent and city forester positions

Holyoke — The ordinance committee on July 29 opened a discussion about separating the city’s combined parks superintendent/city forester role into two distinct positions and voted to table the proposal while staff and councilors gather additional information.

Why it matters: Separating the positions would create a distinct City Forester (focused on arboriculture, tree inventories and forestry work) and a Parks Superintendent (focused on grounds, fields, and routine parks maintenance). The change would have personnel, union and budget implications and might require additional operating funds if both positions are maintained as separate hires.

Councilor McGrath Smith, who filed the order, said the current ordinance does not match the job that is being performed and that the idea has also been the subject of discussions with the municipal unions. "At that time they merged it, and Mr. Tuig took on the duties of both positions," she said, referencing the historical consolidation of the roles. McGrath Smith asked for initial feedback and asked staff to return with a draft parks-superintendent description and fiscal impacts.

Councilors and staff discussed the operational implications. Several councilors raised the practical effect of the city’s recent shift to contracting tree work: if the city lacks in-house tree-climbing crews, creating an additional supervisory position without field staff could increase cost without delivering services. "We have not had any candidates" for a tree-climber position recently, Kelly (staff) said, citing recruitment and salary competitiveness as barriers.

Councilor McGrath Smith asked for clarity on which department manages duties such as brush trimming that affects sightlines on city streets; engineering or the highway division may handle those tasks. Councilor Baker and others also raised the point that parks-and-recreation scheduling and maintenance responsibilities can create conflicts when supervision is split among multiple departments.

After discussion the committee voted 5–0 to table the order and asked staff to provide: (1) a separate parks-superintendent job description for review, (2) whether the city holds any tree-audit/inventory beyond the community’s 100-dangerous-trees list, and (3) an estimate of fiscal impacts, including whether contracted services could be managed through existing budget lines rather than adding a new supervisory post.

Ending: The committee tabled the separation proposal while staff gather staffing inventories, job descriptions, and cost estimates; the item will be revisited at a future meeting once that material is available.