Council hears multiple massage-license appeals; some renewals denied amid online-advertising and ordinance violations

The Green Bay Common Council on July 15 conducted multiple quasi-judicial hearings on contested massage-establishment license renewals and reached different outcomes based on evidence presented about online advertising, on-site compliance and prior enforcement contacts.

Police and city staff told the council they had found online advertisements that used the same phone numbers and addresses as the applicants and that some postings described sexualized paid services. Lieutenant Mahoney of the Green Bay Police Department told the council advertising on sites that offer escort-style services and user reviews describing “handy” services were the basis for several nonrenewal recommendations. The department’s review also checked criteria including prior convictions, allegations of prostitution or human trafficking, and compliance with local licensing requirements (insurance, employee ledger, signage).

Moonlight Spa, 1740 E. Mason: The council denied the renewal after the department reported multiple website listings and a user review describing a sexual act; the owner spoke at the hearing and said she was ill and that the business is largely a single-operator operation, but the council supported the department recommendation and denied the appeal.

E Spa, 1235 S. Military: Police presented evidence that an online advertisement displayed photographs and the same phone number listed on the renewal application. The applicant’s counsel disputed agency findings and said the business had been the target of third‑party postings and that operators had no role in the advertisements; after deliberation the council voted to grant the renewal, with members citing the applicant’s cooperation and corrected documentation.

VIP Spa, 842 S. Military: Department investigators cited multiple on-site ordinance violations (two lighted signs, lack of posted liability insurance, no employee ledger for state licenses). The applicant’s counsel said the firm had corrected the items where possible (posted insurance, made ledger available) and characterized some violations as technical; council members concluded the volume of violations and the pending municipal-court citation supported non-renewal and the appeal was denied.

Cherry Spa / Leisure Spa, 1639 Deckner: The department presented online postings and historical ads tied to the same address and phone number; police said earlier advertisements and social-media posts referenced escort-style services at the site. The owner and counsel said the current business is Cherry Spa, that the owner opened in March 2024, and that earlier posts predated their operation or were posted by third parties. The council debated whether the online material tied to prior names justified denial; an initial motion to deny failed on a 4–6 vote and a subsequent motion to approve renewal passed 6–4 on a roll-call vote.

Across cases council members referenced a new city ordinance that requires establishments to keep a ledger of licensed therapists, post proof of insurance, and report staff changes to the city clerk within 10 days. City staff said they provided education and outreach after the ordinance passed, and police said they attempted compliance work before issuing citations. Council members noted the difference between educational outreach, municipal-court citation processes and the council’s responsibility on license renewals.

Outcomes: Moonlight Spa appeal denied; E Spa renewal granted; VIP Spa appeal denied; Cherry Spa renewal granted (6–4). Council members said the decisions reflected the totality of evidence — posted online advertising tied to the business contact information, on-site compliance with the new ordinance, and any pending municipal-court matters — and that license applicants may reapply if they address compliance issues and change factual circumstances.