Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Establishment Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board denies Saint Rose Spa relicensing after evidence of illicit activity
Summary
The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology voted to deny relicensing for Saint Rose Spa (U101020200793) after staff and police records showed repeated reports of prostitution, refusal of inspections and living quarters on the premises.
The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology on Jan. 13 denied an application to relicense Saint Rose Spa at 120 E. Bruner Ave., Las Vegas, citing multiple prior regulatory and law-enforcement incidents. Board staff presented inspection photos, Yelp advertisements and a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department timeline the board said showed recurrent solicitation and other red flags dating to 2023 and 2024.
Chief Compliance Officer Janie Huggins told the board that staff could not administratively approve a relicensing application because the location’s history included “unlicensed activity, refusal of an inspection, little to no cosmetology or aesthetic equipment found on the premises, living quarters and excessive surveillance equipment.” Huggins said inspectors found condoms, lingerie and living‑quarter evidence and that police had at least four incidents of solicitation connected to the address.
Board members said they were not comfortable approving the new application because, although ownership had changed, the facts about the premise had not materially altered. Board member Douglas said the advertisements “look more illicit than just a beauty spa,” and other members said the same staff and operations issues could recur. Board member Harris moved to deny the petition; the motion carried.
The board told the applicant she could work with staff on a future petition after addressing the documented problems and advised the applicant to resolve outstanding law‑enforcement or business‑licensing issues before reapplying. The board’s action was limited to the establishment license; it did not impose new criminal charges.
The denial follows multiple inspections and a record compiled by staff and LVMPD; the board’s materials included copies of online advertisements, inspection photographs and police event references.
Ending — Board staff will give the applicant instructions on the steps the board expects to see changed before a future petition can be considered.
