The Holyoke Ordinance Committee on Oct. 22 advanced motions to separate parks maintenance from the Department of Public Works and to study where the city forester function should be placed.

Committee members said the combined “park superintendent/forester” role has historically prioritized park-maintenance tasks while forestry duties — tree inventories, risk mitigation and grant-funded conservation projects — received less attention. Members asked the law department to draft ordinance language to return parks maintenance and the park superintendent position to the Parks & Recreation chain of authority rather than keeping it under DPW.

At the meeting the committee also asked DPW and the Conservation Commission to prepare a short memo of pros and cons on placing the city forester under DPW versus Parks & Recreation or Conservation and to return that analysis to committee. Committee members agreed that forestry duties extend beyond parkland (street and boulevard trees) and that the best structural home for the forester should be identified before any final ordinance change.

Committee action and votes
A motion asking legal to draft ordinance language to transfer parks maintenance authority out from under DPW and place parks under the Parks & Recreation board was approved by roll call (vote recorded in committee as yes). A separate motion asking DPW and Conservation to provide pros/cons on placement of the city forester also passed (vote recorded 4–0). The committee then tabled item 1 pending the drafts and departmental input.

Why it matters
Committee members and several councilors described recurring operational problems — park maintenance tasks pulled to other DPW needs (refuse or highway), unclear supervision of parks scheduling and fee collection, and inconsistent attention to urban forestry. Separating the functions, members said, would allow more consistent supervision of parks programming while giving forestry functions a clearer administrative home.

Implementation
The committee directed the city solicitor to draft legal language and requested DPW, Parks & Recreation, and Conservation send written pros-and-cons and possible salary/grade implications for separate positions. The committee will review those drafts at a future meeting.

Ending
Councilors said they support a structure that preserves efficient field operations while ensuring trees and urban forestry receive dedicated attention and grant support.