Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs multiple massage-establishment license renewals; several nonrenewals upheld and others approved after hearing
Summary
At its July 15 meeting the Green Bay Common Council heard quasi-judicial appeals on multiple massage-establishment license renewals. The council granted one appeal, denied several others and allowed a late appeal to proceed to a hearing.
The Green Bay Common Council conducted a series of quasi-judicial hearings July 15 on renewal applications for massage-establishment licenses, responding to police department recommendations, municipal citations and online advertisements that the department said linked some businesses to illicit sexual services.
Key outcomes from the evening’s hearings: - Sunrise Spa (requested late appeal): The council waived a late filing and accepted the appeal, allowing the applicant to seek a hearing on the merits. - Moonlight Spa, 1740 E. Mason: The council denied the appeal and upheld the nonrenewal recommended by police. The police memorandum cited online advertisements linked to the business that allegedly offered "handy" services and municipal-court convictions tied to violations of the massage ordinance. - East Spa, 1235 S. Military: After review and public testimony, the council granted the appeal and approved the renewal. Attorneys for the applicant argued that online posts linking sexual services to the phone number were placed by third-party advertisers and not by the licensee. - VIP Spa, 842 S. Military: Council denied the renewal. Police described multiple violations observed during inspection (two lighted signs in violation of the ordinance, lack of posted insurance and missing employee ledger information); a municipal citation is pending. - Cherry Spa, 1639 Decker: After debate about online posts linking a prior business name and phone number to alleged illicit activity, the council ultimately approved the renewal by a 6-4 vote.
Police briefed councilors on their review methodology: investigators searched internet advertising sites and attempted to match phone numbers and addresses listed on city applications to posts promoting sexual services. In some cases municipal-court convictions or investigations in other jurisdictions were also referenced. Owners and counsel contested the findings in several hearings, saying they had no role in the online posts, that postings may have been arranged by third-party marketing firms, or that alleged past incidents predated the applicant’s ownership. Several licensees said they have since posted required insurance and employee information at their establishments.
Councilors repeatedly said they were balancing enforcement of the new local massage-establishment ordinance with fairness to small-business owners; some members urged stricter enforcement because the ordinance was adopted to address illicit activity. Where evidence showed ongoing or recent violations tied directly to the licensee (including linked phone numbers and municipal-court findings), councilors generally supported nonrenewal. Where the connection to the current applicant was uncertain, some councilors voted to approve renewal so the applicant could correct compliance details under the ordinance.
Several cases remain subject to municipal-court proceedings; council members and the city attorney recommended holding further administrative action pending those outcomes in at least one case.
