Sustainability commission refers food-forest harvesting language to parks committee despite liability and wording concerns

The Green Bay Sustainability Commission voted to recommend proposed revisions to city rules on food-forest harvesting to the parks committee, moving the draft forward as written while several members urged later changes.

The recommendation, approved by voice vote, sends the current draft — which would allow limited, hand-harvested collection of edible plants from public parks and greenways for personal use and includes a no-damage clause and a prohibition on selling — to the parks committee and then onward through the council process for further consideration.

Why it matters: Commissioners said moving the draft now could allow seasonal harvesting this summer, but several warned the language is broad and may expose sensitive plant populations or the city to liability. Melissa, a city staff member, told the commission that the law department had reviewed the draft and that the body does not have authority to make edits on the floor: “The law department informed me that … you’re not allowed to make edits or amendments to this,” she said. That limited the commission’s options to either recommend the draft as written or to not recommend it and send proposed edits back through staff.

Commissioners pressed two main concerns. Ned Dorff, who helped lead the effort to bring the ordinance forward, said he had recommended a hold‑harmless (voluntary-risk‑assumption) clause during drafting and was unsure whether legal had removed it; he argued it was important to protect the city from claims stemming from harvesting activities. Julia Nordyke asked why the draft referenced only “edible” plants and not “medicinal” uses, saying the word choices are vague and could invite inconsistent interpretation. “Why is it only limited to edible plants?” Nordyke asked. Other members noted that the current text could allow removal of all parts of a plant across every park and greenway, and that some plants (for example ramp species) are ecologically sensitive and harmed by digging or full-plant removal.

Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable with the breadth of the draft but preferred moving something forward for the growing season and returning later to tighten the language. “If we send this back to staff now, then we’re definitely not going to have anything on the books for harvest time,” Dorff said, urging the commission to move the draft forward and then submit comments to parks or legal.

What happens next: The parks committee will receive the recommended language and may consider edits, legal review, and eventual city-council readings. The commission acknowledged Healthy Habitats as the community group that helped develop the proposal.

The meeting did not change the ordinance text; it only produced a recommendation to the parks committee. Commissioners discussed options for pursuing hold‑harmless language and narrower scope but did not adopt any specific amendment at this meeting.