Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Licensing Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council denies two massage‑establishment license applications after police vice investigations

Las Vegas City Council · July 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following repeated inspection deficiencies and undercover vice operations that resulted in prostitution‑related arrests and an emergency closure, the council denied permanent massage establishment licenses for two businesses and extended the cooling‑off period.

City business licensing staff and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department investigators recommended denial of permanent massage‑establishment licenses for Golden Thai Spa (2251 S. Rainbow Blvd) and Thai Massage Golden Beauty/Time Massage Golden Beauty (5013 Alta Dr.), both owned or operated by the same individual, after documenting a history of management deficiencies and prostitution‑related criminal activity.

Staff recounted multiple inspections beginning in 2025 that found bedding on the premises, interior locking mechanisms, and audio/video recording devices; earlier temporary licenses included specific operating conditions. Metro conducted undercover vice operations in June 2025 and June 2026 that led to arrests for prostitution solicitation by employees. The Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy also placed one owner’s massage therapy license on probation in January 2026.

Applicant counsel Kirk Kennedy argued the issues arose from oversight failures by on‑site managers and asked the council to allow a probationary reinstatement period (six months to one year) so the owner could show corrective action. Several council members, citing documented repeat violations, strong police investigative findings and concerns about human trafficking, expressed little patience and urged denial.

Council voted to deny the permanent licenses for both applications and (per staff recommendation) extend the cooling‑off period beyond the default one year; staff recommended a three‑year cooling‑off period. The motions carried by voice vote.