Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Sparks adopts ordinance tightening rules on illicit massage parlors after public legal concern raised
Loading...
Summary
The council unanimously adopted ordinance 2849 to broaden denial and enforcement powers against illegal massage establishments, including a three‑year location bar after revocation and expanded inspection authority; a public commenter warned the spouse/employee denial language may pose constitutional risk.
The Sparks City Council on March 9 adopted ordinance 2849, amending city code to strengthen the city’s ability to deter illegal massage businesses and brothels that staff said had been operating in the region under the guise of legitimate massage establishments.
City Attorney Wes Duncan outlined the ordinance’s main elements: additions to Sparks Municipal Code section 5.65 that would bar a person associated with a revoked license from obtaining a new license, prohibit any massage establishment from holding a license at a previously revoked location for three years, expand inspection authority for code enforcement and police (including refusal to permit inspection as a ground for revocation), and prevent owners or employees from living or sleeping at a licensed massage business unless they possess a valid home‑occupant permit.
Duncan said the measures respond to local enforcement experience — including instances where a revoked licensee’s associates attempted to reapply and where sites used locked cupboards to prevent inspection — and are modeled on practices used by other cities to deter repeat operators. He framed the change as part of a regional effort to combat exploitation and human trafficking.
During the public hearing Hunter Rand, a Ward 2 resident, praised the ordinance’s goals but said specific subsections (notably provisions allowing denial based on a spouse’s past revocation and denying licenses to former employees of a revoked business) could expose the city to constitutional challenges. Rand said he consulted a constitutional law attorney and urged council to narrow language so it targets decision‑makers and owners rather than spouses or low‑level employees who lacked operational control.
Council discussed the measure briefly with no amendments and voted to adopt the ordinance unanimously. The city attorney’s office and regional partners were thanked for enforcement work; the ordinance becomes effective upon passage per the reading.
