Joplin City Council Work Session: Health Inspection Grading and Camping Ordinance, July 13, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Joplin City Council Work Session: Health Inspection Grading and Camping Ordinance
On July 13, 2026, the Joplin City Council held a work session to discuss two major topics: a potential transition from a pass/fail system to a scoring or letter-grade system for routine health inspections of food establishments, and a review of the city's camping ordinance prompted by community concerns. The meeting included presentations from the Health Department, Police Department, and the Municipal Prosecutor, followed by council discussion and consensus on next steps.
Health Inspection Grading System
- Devin Blankenship, Assistant Director of the Joplin Health Department, presented on the current pass/fail system based on the 2009 FDA Food Code. He noted the department conducted 800 routine inspections in the prior year, with 99 revisits and 72 complaints. He proposed replacing pass/fail with either a numeric score (e.g., 0–100) or a letter grade (A–C), starting at 100 points and deducting for violations (e.g., 5 points for priority violations, 1 point for core violations). He highlighted benefits: better differentiation between high and low performers, more useful information for the public, and incentives for improvement. Obstacles included ensuring inspector consistency (estimated software upgrade cost ~$10,000), potential tension with operators, and the need to revise the food code. Council members expressed varied opinions: Council member Dutar supported the concept, asking about implementation costs; Council member Price cautioned that a letter grade provides only a snapshot and may not reflect real-time risk; Council member Moran favored a numeric score and letter grade combined, citing better communication; Council member Bard supported letter grades and noted the value of points not being earned back after correction; Council member Jackson raised concerns about businesses requesting reinspections to improve grades; Council member Koppel advocated for the system, proposing higher point values for critical failures (e.g., 40 points) and doubling points for repeat violations within a 12-month period. Council member Cows asked about consistency among inspectors and potential training costs. Council consensus was to proceed with developing a scoring/grading system, with a proposed timeline: staff to draft code revisions and software changes over approximately six months, followed by a hybrid period where businesses are informed of their hypothetical scores before full rollout. The council also discussed removing the word "blankets" from the ordinance’s list of camping paraphernalia and replacing it with "bedding" to avoid penalizing casual use.
Camping Ordinance Review
- Chief Pearson of the Joplin Police Department emphasized that the camping ordinance is enforced uniformly across the city to protect the intended use of public spaces (e.g., parks, sidewalks, benches). He gave examples of how camping interferes with public access (e.g., a soccer mom unable to use a park). Prosecutor Joe Crossway provided enforcement data: 86 citations were issued between August 2025 and July 2026, with 35 in the first month and declining numbers since. Citations occurred on benches (9), streets/alleyways (36), parks (24), artistic alley/bridge (12), and cemeteries (2). Of the 86, 51 pleaded guilty, 15 were dismissed, 3 were deferred, and 13 are pending. Only two citations were refused. He noted that many violators receive warnings before citation, and first-time offenders typically receive fines rather than jail time; repeat offenders may face jail. Crossway proposed two amendments to strengthen the ordinance: (1) replace the word "blankets" with "bedding" in the definition of camp paraphernalia to clarify that casual use of a blanket for resting is not prohibited, and (2) change the term "public property" to "public place" (as defined in city code) to cover private property open to public view, allowing enforcement on abandoned private property where camping occurs. Council members discussed the amendments: Council member Bard supported strengthening the ordinance and requested Crossway provide further recommendations; Council member Datar initially considered easing language but after hearing data agreed the current enforcement is fair and preferred to keep the ordinance strong with the proposed changes; Council member Cows advocated for broader definitions and suggested a progressive enforcement system with community service rather than fines; Council member Cortez praised the enforcement record and supported strengthening; Council member Price emphasized the need to allow new Homeless Coordinator Lane time to assess before making changes; Council member Koppel raised concerns about defining "habitation" and questioned the citation of an individual sitting at a bench with belongings (the "first in Maine" case). Council member Jackson stressed the importance of trespass agreements for businesses. Homeless Coordinator Lance (first name not given) urged a system of care alongside enforcement to help individuals transition from homelessness. The council reached consensus to direct staff to draft revisions to the ordinance incorporating the two proposed amendments (replacing "blankets" with "bedding" and changing "public property" to "public place"), with further discussion on defining habitation to be considered.
Key Outcomes
- Health Inspection Grading: Council directed staff to proceed with developing a scoring or letter-grade system for food establishment inspections. The next steps include drafting code revisions, configuring software (estimated cost ~$10,000), and engaging stakeholders. A timeline of approximately six months for drafting and a subsequent hybrid notification period before full implementation was suggested.
- Camping Ordinance Amendments: Council consensus agreed to amend the ordinance by (1) replacing "blankets" with "bedding" in the list of camp paraphernalia, and (2) changing the enforcement area from "public property" to "public place" (as defined in city code) to include private property open to public view. Staff will bring back a revised ordinance at a future meeting. No formal votes were taken; direction was given via consensus.
Meeting Transcript
All right, folks, we'll get uh started here at 545 for our work session today on July 13th. Uh thank all the council members uh for being here this evening. Uh first thing on the agenda is the uh health inspection grading. Welcome, Devin. Hello. Good evening, council. For those of you I haven't met yet, I'm Devin Blankenship. I'm the assistant director at the Joplin Health Department. So here at your requests, uh present you with some information on grading for routine health inspections for food establishments. Okay. So gonna throw a lot of information out at you tonight. Just want to kind of give you a good understanding of where we currently operate with regard to food inspections. Um the city of Joplin, we have our own local food ordinance. It's modeled after the 2009 FDA food ordinance. So approximately every four years, the FDA publishes a model food code. Um so the state of Missouri, I believe it was in 2013 adopted the 2009 food ordinance, and that's the one they're currently operating under. In conjunction with that, we updated our food code to reflect the changes the state made. Um so that's the state of things to now for now. Um so there have been several iterations of the food code published by the FDA since then. The current one is the 2022 Model FDA food code. Um the state of Missouri is currently looking at adopting that. They've been working on that for a couple years. So we're we're kind of anticipating some changes coming down the pipeline pretty soon on that. But for now, we're still in the 2009 world, so if that makes any sense. Um our food code, if you can see in that PowerPoint, those bullet points uh of the requirements, each of those is a chapter in our food code. Um so there's lots of things. It's about a hundred and twenty-page document of requirements, you know, things regarding if employees are sick when they can or can't come to work, temperatures for cooking foods, what food contact surfaces are constructed of, how to wash dishes, things like that. Uh one of the chapters is compliance and enforcement, and it actually sets forth our mechanisms for doing inspections, pulling permits, designating compliance status, how often we do food inspections and things like that. So anyway. So uh as far as what we're doing, the work we're currently doing as far as routine food inspections go, uh there and the number fluctuates. You know, we have restaurants closing and opening all the time. When I pulled the number last, we had 485 licensed full-time food establishments that we did routine inspections on. Um that can be anything from a restaurant, convenience store, grocery store, or a full-time food truck, ones that are permitted for uh 365-day operations. Um as far as what we kind of to give you an idea of how many inspections we did last year, um bear in mind we have three full-time inspectors, and then I kind of pitch in where we need help to do some of that work as well. We did about 800 routine inspections last year, um, and then we did 99 routine revisits. So think of routine revisits. That's like a routine that failed that needs a follow-up. So about one out of every routine inspections we had to follow up on uh to make sure things got corrected. We also did a lot of complaints, 72 complaints, 66 pre-openings. Pre-openings can be a brand new restaurant, can be a new food truck, lots of new food trucks, uh, and then it can also be like a change of ownership that would initiate a pre-opening as well. Um we did a lot of temporary food inspections as well. Things like think of like 4th of July, if they have food trucks that aren't fully licensed, they buy a permit and we do an inspection to make sure they meet the sanitation guidelines as well. Um so that's a big load of work there. And we did some emergency response. Those are things like restaurant fires or sewage backing up into a restaurant. We go into those, we get called out to those and make sure the food's disposed of uh appropriately and the kitchen's brought into working order before they resume operations. Okay, so scoring would apply to routine inspections to give you a better idea of what we're doing with routine inspections. These are unannounced inspections, that's the way we've done them. Um so they don't know we're coming. The our goal for a routine inspection is to make sure they are following the requirements of the code.
openpublica.com