Nevada cosmetology board approves one new spa license, denies several variance requests and resolves multiple citation appeals
October 14, 2025 | State Board of Cosmetology, Independent Boards, Commissions, or Councils, Organizations, Executive, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
CARSON CITY — The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology on Oct. 13 considered licensing and enforcement matters spanning student hour transfers, continuing-education credit disputes, home‑based salon variances, new establishment applications and contested citations. The board unanimously approved a new establishment license under conditions for a massage spa, denied several petitions for variances and reciprocity, tabled one contested establishment while the matter is before a court, and resolved a series of contested citations and license‑application disputes with a mix of denials, reduced fines and fee waivers.
The board’s vote package matters were the most consequential part of the meeting: staff recommended action on more than a dozen petitions and board members voted on each. The decisions affect whether individual licensees can count earlier training toward Nevada credentials; whether home or garage‑attached spaces can be used as cosmetology establishments; whether continuing-education credits may be accepted retroactively; and whether citings for practicing or operating outside licensed scope will remain on records or be reduced.
Pure Massage Spa approved under probationary conditions
The board granted an establishment license to Pure Massage Spa (U101024510) but only on a probationary basis with multiple named conditions intended to address prior enforcement concerns and to preserve public safety. Staff recommended, and the board adopted, a two‑year maximum initial license (rather than a full four‑year term) with conditions including regular inspections by board staff; unlocked doors and removal of internal doors providing access to hallways during business hours; a requirement that a licensee covered by the cosmetology board be present and actively overseeing services at all times; a prohibition on using cosmetology rooms to provide massage services (and vice versa); administrative review of any floor‑plan changes; and immediate voluntary surrender and potential discipline if the probationary conditions are violated. The motion to approve carried unanimously (no roll call tally recorded in the transcript).
Denied, tabled and modified petitions
- Credit transfer (variance) — Christiane Liggins (ST0101022053) asked the board for a variance to allow hours earned in an “advanced aesthetics” program to count toward the basic aesthetic program under NAC 644A.640. Board staff and counsel explained the current regulation does not permit reverse transfers from advanced to basic and that the school transcript showed only 200 basic hours. The board voted to deny the variance (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris). Outcome: denied.
- Continuing education (CEU) — Aaron Gomez (I46468) asked the board to accept CEUs that had been recorded with her as the instructor. Staff testified and showed provider applications listing Gomez as the instructor; board policy bars an individual from receiving CEU credit for a course they themselves taught and also prohibits back‑dating provider applications. The board denied the petition (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris). Outcome: denied.
- Home‑based salon / permanent plumbing variance — Sage Steele (U101024456) sought variances to allow a dispensary sink in an attached garage and to use a shampoo bowl as a dispensary sink for a salon space attached to her home. Staff’s inspection photos and site plan were discussed at length. Board members raised concerns about setting precedent for home salons and about access/egress and fire safety if the garage entrance is closed. After discussion the board denied the variance with the invite to return with a revised plan that seals and separates the space and addresses plumbing access (motion to deny by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris). Outcome: denied; petitioner invited to reapply with revised plans.
- Reciprocity / license transfer — The board reviewed an application that staff could not verify (Ying Fang Su / reciprocity records from Temple City Beauty College) and found incomplete/handwritten attendance records, missing documented credits for Nevada‑required skincare hours and a prior disciplinary history for an unrelated massage license that had not been disclosed on the cosmetology reciprocity application. Staff issued an unable‑to‑process notice and the board denied the reciprocity application as presented (motion to deny carried). Outcome: denied (unable to verify schooling/credits; applicant instructed on next steps).
- Sunflower Massage (U101024439) — Board counsel advised tabling agenda item D (Sunflower Massage) because the petitioner had filed a writ of mandamus in district court; counsel and the executive director recommended deferral while the court determines jurisdiction. The board tabled the matter to await the court proceedings (motion carried). Outcome: tabled pending court action.
Contested citations and enforcement outcomes (high‑level summary)
The board heard a series of contested citations and enforcement appeals. Staff presented investigative evidence (inspection photos, social‑media and booking links) in each contested matter. The board took the following actions on the individual citation petitions presented in open session (summarized and listed under “Votes at a glance” below). Among the outcomes: several citations were upheld; several fines were reduced (commonly 50% reduction recommended by staff); some fines already paid will be refunded at the lesser amount; some citation fines were waived but the citation itself was left on the record as a formal notice; and at least one establishment license was approved but only under strict, enumerated probationary conditions.
Why this matters
The board’s decisions clarify the application of Nevada regulations on credit transfers between different cosmetology programs, the narrow conditions under which continuing education credits are accepted, the high bar applied to home‑based cosmetology practices, and the enforcement approach for social‑media and booking‑site advertising that suggests licensed services before Nevada licensing and inspections are complete. For licensees and salon owners, the meeting reinforced that staff will follow advertised services and booking pages as evidence of activity in violation of scope, and that owners must actively supervise suites and confirm compliance for everyone operating on their premises.
Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded during Oct. 13 meeting)
Note: motion text below paraphrases what was moved on the record. Tally counts appear in the transcript only where captured; otherwise the transcript recorded “motion carries.”
- Approval of minutes (September 29, 2025): motion carried (approve minutes).
- ST0101022053 (Christiane Liggins) — Petition: variance to NAC 644A.640 (transfer of credits/hours). Motion: deny variance. Outcome: denied (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris).
- I46468 (Aaron Gomez) — Petition: variance to NAC 644.8260 (continuing education). Motion: deny. Outcome: denied (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris).
- U101024456 (Sage Steele Beauty Studio) — Petitions: variances to NAC 644A.725 and NAC 644.8828 for a home‑attached salon and dispensary sink. Motion: deny. Outcome: denied (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris).
- Reciprocity application (applicant identified on record as +1 010224454 / transfer from California) — Motion: deny application due to unverifiable hours and prior disciplinary history on related massage license. Outcome: denied (motion carried).
- U101024510 (Pure Massage Spa) — Motion: approve establishment license with probationary conditions (maximum 2‑year initial license; regular inspections; doors unlocked during business hours; internal doors removed; licensed cosmetology board licensee on site at all times; prohibit massage in cosmetology rooms and vice versa; administrative approval for floor‑plan changes; prohibition on prostitution; immediate voluntary surrender on violation). Outcome: approved with conditions (unanimous; staff to issue conditions in writing).
- U101024439 (Sunflower Massage) — Motion: table (petitioner filed writ of mandamus in district court). Outcome: tabled pending court proceedings (motion carried).
- ST‑1548 (Ludvin Castillo) — Multiple citations for operating/advertising while a student: board upheld citations but reduced total fine by 50%; total owed reduced from $5,000 to $2,500 (motion carried).
- AE3021 (Unique Lujan) — Multiple citations for practicing/operating without license: board upheld citations but approved a $500 reduction (motion carried).
- HB705081 (Anaya Redden) — Citations for practicing/operating without license: board upheld citations but waived the fines (citation remains on record; motion carried).
- A100215 (Heidi Majaro / petitioner A.100215 on transcript) — Citations for operating/practicing without license: board upheld citation and reduced fine by 50%; because petitioner had already paid, staff will issue a refund for the difference (motion carried).
- CD35654 (Rianne Brent) — Citation for advertising and booking a mobile salon prior to licensing: board upheld citation but reduced fine by 50% contingent on follow‑up with staff to license the mobile unit (motion carried).
- MADash705925 (Shamley Bagrat) — Petition disputing citations for scope/advertising: board upheld citation and fees (motion carried).
- HB704919 (Jeronda Forrest) — Citations for practicing outside scope (braider offering non‑braiding services): board upheld citation and fines (motion carried).
- S187213 (Eye Candy Salon Suites / owner Aaron Christensen) — Petition disputing a second‑offense citation for allowing an unlicensed individual to perform services: board upheld the citation for the establishment but waived the fee (motion carried).
What the board and staff emphasized
Board staff repeatedly told petitioners that: (1) licensing and scope are driven by Nevada statute and NAC provisions and that staff must enforce the written regulations; (2) advertising, booking pages and booking‑checkout behavior that indicate services are being offered to the public are checked against licensing status and may be used as evidence of unlicensed practice; and (3) the board prefers to use cease‑and‑desist notices and education, but will issue citations when necessary. Staff also encouraged licensees and applicants to call the board in advance for licensing and design guidance to avoid costly retrofits or disallowed business models.
Next steps and community notes
- Petitioners denied today may reapply after addressing the regulatory or documentary deficiencies identified by staff (for example: corrected CEU provider applications, school transcripts that clearly separate basic vs. advanced hours, or redesigned home‑salon plans that fully separate living quarters).
- The Sunflower Massage item is stayed until the district court resolves a filed writ; the board will not deliberate on that establishment while the court has jurisdiction.
- Staff will send written notices to affected petitioners describing the conditions of approvals, details of fines and any refunds ordered by the board, and instructions for reapplying where appropriate.
Speakers relevant to this article (appearances in the transcript)
- Steve McDonald — Executive director, Nevada State Board of Cosmetology (government: State Board of Cosmetology). First reference: meeting roll call and swearing in petitioners.
- Lauren Gossage — Regulatory compliance specialist (government: State Board staff). Frequent presenter of staff slides/evidence.
- Bertha Jackson — Chief operating officer (government: State Board staff). Presented transcript/credit details for education matters.
- Janie Huggins — Chief compliance officer / inspector (government: State Board staff). Testified on inspections and enforcement.
- Erin Litterer — Lead licensing specialist (government: State Board staff). Presented licensing/CEU review slides.
- Aaron Littiver — Lead licensing specialist (government: State Board staff). Present during licensing items.
- Joseph Osterio / Joseph Osternio — Deputy Attorney General (government: Office of the Attorney General). Advised the board on litigation/jurisdiction (Sunflower Massage writ).
- Board member Douglas — Board member (board). Moved or seconded multiple motions on record.
- Board member Harris — Board member (board). Frequently seconded motions and questioned staff.
- Board member Jeffers — Board member (board). Asked clarifying questions during hearings.
- Board member Wold — Board member (board). Asked multiple policy/precedent questions during variance hearings.
- Board member Modena/Monna (as named in transcript) — Board member (board). Asked clarifying questions of petitioners.
- Petitioners and others who testified (selection): Christiane Liggins (ST0101022053); Erin/Erin Litterer (staff); Aaron Gomez (I46468); Sage Steele (U101024456); Ying (reciprocity applicant); Rianne Brent (CD35654); Unique Lujan (AE3021); Ludvin Castillo (ST1548); Anaya Redden (HB705081); Heidi Majaro (A100215); Jeronda Forrest (HB704919); owner Aaron Christensen (Eye Candy Salon Suites, S187213); and others who gave sworn testimony.
Authorities (references recorded in the meeting transcript)
- NAC 644A.640 — cited in the Christiane Liggins variance discussion (transfer of credit/hours).
- NAC 644.8260 — cited in the Aaron Gomez CEU/continuing education discussion.
- NAC 644A.725 and NAC 644.8828 (as cited in transcript stylizations) — referenced in the Sage Steele home‑practice and dispensary sink variance discussion (place of practice; plumbing/dispensary sink requirements for establishments).
- NRS/NAC references used by staff during licensing and reciprocity reviews and in several petitions were read from the transcript as stated by staff during testimony (e.g., references to NRS/NAC sections governing reciprocity and disciplinary disqualifiers). The article cites only those authorities as they were named in the meeting record rather than construing them further.
Clarifying details extracted from the meeting record
- Pure Massage Spa license: initial license limited to two years; probationary conditions enumerated in staff recommendation.
- Christiane Liggins (variance): school transcript showed 200 credited basic aesthetic hours; petitioner requested transfer to count advanced‑aesthetic hours; regulation cited prohibits transfer in that direction per staff reading of NAC 644A.640.
- Aaron Gomez (CEUs): staff documented multiple CEU provider applications that named Gomez as the instructor/provider; board policy and application rules require CEU instructor and CEU recipient to be different persons and pre‑approval of CEU provider applications; staff does not accept back‑dated CEU approvals.
- Sage Steele (home salon): staff inspection photos showed a shampoo bowl permanently plumbed inside the licensed portion but a dispensary sink in a garage area accessed from the salon; staff recommended either a sealed closet/room to permanently separate the garage entry, a permanently sealed and redirected entry, or a portable sink only under narrow conditions; board denied variance and suggested reapplying with an architect/fire/inspection plan.
- Citation outcomes: several citation fines were reduced (common staff recommendation: 50% reduction), some fines were waived while leaving the citation on the record, and some were upheld without reduction. Total fine reductions/refunds were resolved on the record in several cases (see Votes at a glance above).
Meeting context and next steps
- Engagement level: the hearing recorded numerous sworn testimonies, slides and inspection photos; staff and board members spent the bulk of the meeting on enforcement and licensing disputes; the meeting ran multiple hours with a 20‑minute break.
- Implementation risk: several approvals are contingent on petitioners meeting conditions (e.g., Pure Massage Spa probationary conditions; mobile‑establishment licensing requires local/building/fire approvals). Some items are pending external decisions (Sunflower Massage is stayed while a district court writ is pending).
- If a petitioner needs appeal or to reapply, staff advised they contact licensing or inspection teams for the required documents and clarified that board decisions are based on the regulations, evidence presented and, for technical licensing matters, what can be documented in writing.
Searchable tags: ["cosmetology","licensing","enforcement","Nevada","Las Vegas","Pure Massage Spa","home salon","CEUs","reciprocity","NAC 644","city of Las Vegas","board meeting"]
Ending
The board chair closed the meeting after the last votes; staff said they will follow up in writing with licensees and owners who must comply with the board’s conditions and with petitioners ordered to pay, refunded or otherwise notified. Several petitioners were advised to contact board licensing staff before spending additional funds to change physical layouts or to apply for alternate licenses. The Sunflower Massage matter remains pending in district court and the board will not deliberate on it until the court resolves jurisdictional issues.
The board’s vote package matters were the most consequential part of the meeting: staff recommended action on more than a dozen petitions and board members voted on each. The decisions affect whether individual licensees can count earlier training toward Nevada credentials; whether home or garage‑attached spaces can be used as cosmetology establishments; whether continuing-education credits may be accepted retroactively; and whether citings for practicing or operating outside licensed scope will remain on records or be reduced.
Pure Massage Spa approved under probationary conditions
The board granted an establishment license to Pure Massage Spa (U101024510) but only on a probationary basis with multiple named conditions intended to address prior enforcement concerns and to preserve public safety. Staff recommended, and the board adopted, a two‑year maximum initial license (rather than a full four‑year term) with conditions including regular inspections by board staff; unlocked doors and removal of internal doors providing access to hallways during business hours; a requirement that a licensee covered by the cosmetology board be present and actively overseeing services at all times; a prohibition on using cosmetology rooms to provide massage services (and vice versa); administrative review of any floor‑plan changes; and immediate voluntary surrender and potential discipline if the probationary conditions are violated. The motion to approve carried unanimously (no roll call tally recorded in the transcript).
Denied, tabled and modified petitions
- Credit transfer (variance) — Christiane Liggins (ST0101022053) asked the board for a variance to allow hours earned in an “advanced aesthetics” program to count toward the basic aesthetic program under NAC 644A.640. Board staff and counsel explained the current regulation does not permit reverse transfers from advanced to basic and that the school transcript showed only 200 basic hours. The board voted to deny the variance (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris). Outcome: denied.
- Continuing education (CEU) — Aaron Gomez (I46468) asked the board to accept CEUs that had been recorded with her as the instructor. Staff testified and showed provider applications listing Gomez as the instructor; board policy bars an individual from receiving CEU credit for a course they themselves taught and also prohibits back‑dating provider applications. The board denied the petition (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris). Outcome: denied.
- Home‑based salon / permanent plumbing variance — Sage Steele (U101024456) sought variances to allow a dispensary sink in an attached garage and to use a shampoo bowl as a dispensary sink for a salon space attached to her home. Staff’s inspection photos and site plan were discussed at length. Board members raised concerns about setting precedent for home salons and about access/egress and fire safety if the garage entrance is closed. After discussion the board denied the variance with the invite to return with a revised plan that seals and separates the space and addresses plumbing access (motion to deny by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris). Outcome: denied; petitioner invited to reapply with revised plans.
- Reciprocity / license transfer — The board reviewed an application that staff could not verify (Ying Fang Su / reciprocity records from Temple City Beauty College) and found incomplete/handwritten attendance records, missing documented credits for Nevada‑required skincare hours and a prior disciplinary history for an unrelated massage license that had not been disclosed on the cosmetology reciprocity application. Staff issued an unable‑to‑process notice and the board denied the reciprocity application as presented (motion to deny carried). Outcome: denied (unable to verify schooling/credits; applicant instructed on next steps).
- Sunflower Massage (U101024439) — Board counsel advised tabling agenda item D (Sunflower Massage) because the petitioner had filed a writ of mandamus in district court; counsel and the executive director recommended deferral while the court determines jurisdiction. The board tabled the matter to await the court proceedings (motion carried). Outcome: tabled pending court action.
Contested citations and enforcement outcomes (high‑level summary)
The board heard a series of contested citations and enforcement appeals. Staff presented investigative evidence (inspection photos, social‑media and booking links) in each contested matter. The board took the following actions on the individual citation petitions presented in open session (summarized and listed under “Votes at a glance” below). Among the outcomes: several citations were upheld; several fines were reduced (commonly 50% reduction recommended by staff); some fines already paid will be refunded at the lesser amount; some citation fines were waived but the citation itself was left on the record as a formal notice; and at least one establishment license was approved but only under strict, enumerated probationary conditions.
Why this matters
The board’s decisions clarify the application of Nevada regulations on credit transfers between different cosmetology programs, the narrow conditions under which continuing education credits are accepted, the high bar applied to home‑based cosmetology practices, and the enforcement approach for social‑media and booking‑site advertising that suggests licensed services before Nevada licensing and inspections are complete. For licensees and salon owners, the meeting reinforced that staff will follow advertised services and booking pages as evidence of activity in violation of scope, and that owners must actively supervise suites and confirm compliance for everyone operating on their premises.
Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded during Oct. 13 meeting)
Note: motion text below paraphrases what was moved on the record. Tally counts appear in the transcript only where captured; otherwise the transcript recorded “motion carries.”
- Approval of minutes (September 29, 2025): motion carried (approve minutes).
- ST0101022053 (Christiane Liggins) — Petition: variance to NAC 644A.640 (transfer of credits/hours). Motion: deny variance. Outcome: denied (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris).
- I46468 (Aaron Gomez) — Petition: variance to NAC 644.8260 (continuing education). Motion: deny. Outcome: denied (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris).
- U101024456 (Sage Steele Beauty Studio) — Petitions: variances to NAC 644A.725 and NAC 644.8828 for a home‑attached salon and dispensary sink. Motion: deny. Outcome: denied (motion by Board member Douglas; second by Board member Harris).
- Reciprocity application (applicant identified on record as +1 010224454 / transfer from California) — Motion: deny application due to unverifiable hours and prior disciplinary history on related massage license. Outcome: denied (motion carried).
- U101024510 (Pure Massage Spa) — Motion: approve establishment license with probationary conditions (maximum 2‑year initial license; regular inspections; doors unlocked during business hours; internal doors removed; licensed cosmetology board licensee on site at all times; prohibit massage in cosmetology rooms and vice versa; administrative approval for floor‑plan changes; prohibition on prostitution; immediate voluntary surrender on violation). Outcome: approved with conditions (unanimous; staff to issue conditions in writing).
- U101024439 (Sunflower Massage) — Motion: table (petitioner filed writ of mandamus in district court). Outcome: tabled pending court proceedings (motion carried).
- ST‑1548 (Ludvin Castillo) — Multiple citations for operating/advertising while a student: board upheld citations but reduced total fine by 50%; total owed reduced from $5,000 to $2,500 (motion carried).
- AE3021 (Unique Lujan) — Multiple citations for practicing/operating without license: board upheld citations but approved a $500 reduction (motion carried).
- HB705081 (Anaya Redden) — Citations for practicing/operating without license: board upheld citations but waived the fines (citation remains on record; motion carried).
- A100215 (Heidi Majaro / petitioner A.100215 on transcript) — Citations for operating/practicing without license: board upheld citation and reduced fine by 50%; because petitioner had already paid, staff will issue a refund for the difference (motion carried).
- CD35654 (Rianne Brent) — Citation for advertising and booking a mobile salon prior to licensing: board upheld citation but reduced fine by 50% contingent on follow‑up with staff to license the mobile unit (motion carried).
- MADash705925 (Shamley Bagrat) — Petition disputing citations for scope/advertising: board upheld citation and fees (motion carried).
- HB704919 (Jeronda Forrest) — Citations for practicing outside scope (braider offering non‑braiding services): board upheld citation and fines (motion carried).
- S187213 (Eye Candy Salon Suites / owner Aaron Christensen) — Petition disputing a second‑offense citation for allowing an unlicensed individual to perform services: board upheld the citation for the establishment but waived the fee (motion carried).
What the board and staff emphasized
Board staff repeatedly told petitioners that: (1) licensing and scope are driven by Nevada statute and NAC provisions and that staff must enforce the written regulations; (2) advertising, booking pages and booking‑checkout behavior that indicate services are being offered to the public are checked against licensing status and may be used as evidence of unlicensed practice; and (3) the board prefers to use cease‑and‑desist notices and education, but will issue citations when necessary. Staff also encouraged licensees and applicants to call the board in advance for licensing and design guidance to avoid costly retrofits or disallowed business models.
Next steps and community notes
- Petitioners denied today may reapply after addressing the regulatory or documentary deficiencies identified by staff (for example: corrected CEU provider applications, school transcripts that clearly separate basic vs. advanced hours, or redesigned home‑salon plans that fully separate living quarters).
- The Sunflower Massage item is stayed until the district court resolves a filed writ; the board will not deliberate on that establishment while the court has jurisdiction.
- Staff will send written notices to affected petitioners describing the conditions of approvals, details of fines and any refunds ordered by the board, and instructions for reapplying where appropriate.
Speakers relevant to this article (appearances in the transcript)
- Steve McDonald — Executive director, Nevada State Board of Cosmetology (government: State Board of Cosmetology). First reference: meeting roll call and swearing in petitioners.
- Lauren Gossage — Regulatory compliance specialist (government: State Board staff). Frequent presenter of staff slides/evidence.
- Bertha Jackson — Chief operating officer (government: State Board staff). Presented transcript/credit details for education matters.
- Janie Huggins — Chief compliance officer / inspector (government: State Board staff). Testified on inspections and enforcement.
- Erin Litterer — Lead licensing specialist (government: State Board staff). Presented licensing/CEU review slides.
- Aaron Littiver — Lead licensing specialist (government: State Board staff). Present during licensing items.
- Joseph Osterio / Joseph Osternio — Deputy Attorney General (government: Office of the Attorney General). Advised the board on litigation/jurisdiction (Sunflower Massage writ).
- Board member Douglas — Board member (board). Moved or seconded multiple motions on record.
- Board member Harris — Board member (board). Frequently seconded motions and questioned staff.
- Board member Jeffers — Board member (board). Asked clarifying questions during hearings.
- Board member Wold — Board member (board). Asked multiple policy/precedent questions during variance hearings.
- Board member Modena/Monna (as named in transcript) — Board member (board). Asked clarifying questions of petitioners.
- Petitioners and others who testified (selection): Christiane Liggins (ST0101022053); Erin/Erin Litterer (staff); Aaron Gomez (I46468); Sage Steele (U101024456); Ying (reciprocity applicant); Rianne Brent (CD35654); Unique Lujan (AE3021); Ludvin Castillo (ST1548); Anaya Redden (HB705081); Heidi Majaro (A100215); Jeronda Forrest (HB704919); owner Aaron Christensen (Eye Candy Salon Suites, S187213); and others who gave sworn testimony.
Authorities (references recorded in the meeting transcript)
- NAC 644A.640 — cited in the Christiane Liggins variance discussion (transfer of credit/hours).
- NAC 644.8260 — cited in the Aaron Gomez CEU/continuing education discussion.
- NAC 644A.725 and NAC 644.8828 (as cited in transcript stylizations) — referenced in the Sage Steele home‑practice and dispensary sink variance discussion (place of practice; plumbing/dispensary sink requirements for establishments).
- NRS/NAC references used by staff during licensing and reciprocity reviews and in several petitions were read from the transcript as stated by staff during testimony (e.g., references to NRS/NAC sections governing reciprocity and disciplinary disqualifiers). The article cites only those authorities as they were named in the meeting record rather than construing them further.
Clarifying details extracted from the meeting record
- Pure Massage Spa license: initial license limited to two years; probationary conditions enumerated in staff recommendation.
- Christiane Liggins (variance): school transcript showed 200 credited basic aesthetic hours; petitioner requested transfer to count advanced‑aesthetic hours; regulation cited prohibits transfer in that direction per staff reading of NAC 644A.640.
- Aaron Gomez (CEUs): staff documented multiple CEU provider applications that named Gomez as the instructor/provider; board policy and application rules require CEU instructor and CEU recipient to be different persons and pre‑approval of CEU provider applications; staff does not accept back‑dated CEU approvals.
- Sage Steele (home salon): staff inspection photos showed a shampoo bowl permanently plumbed inside the licensed portion but a dispensary sink in a garage area accessed from the salon; staff recommended either a sealed closet/room to permanently separate the garage entry, a permanently sealed and redirected entry, or a portable sink only under narrow conditions; board denied variance and suggested reapplying with an architect/fire/inspection plan.
- Citation outcomes: several citation fines were reduced (common staff recommendation: 50% reduction), some fines were waived while leaving the citation on the record, and some were upheld without reduction. Total fine reductions/refunds were resolved on the record in several cases (see Votes at a glance above).
Meeting context and next steps
- Engagement level: the hearing recorded numerous sworn testimonies, slides and inspection photos; staff and board members spent the bulk of the meeting on enforcement and licensing disputes; the meeting ran multiple hours with a 20‑minute break.
- Implementation risk: several approvals are contingent on petitioners meeting conditions (e.g., Pure Massage Spa probationary conditions; mobile‑establishment licensing requires local/building/fire approvals). Some items are pending external decisions (Sunflower Massage is stayed while a district court writ is pending).
- If a petitioner needs appeal or to reapply, staff advised they contact licensing or inspection teams for the required documents and clarified that board decisions are based on the regulations, evidence presented and, for technical licensing matters, what can be documented in writing.
Searchable tags: ["cosmetology","licensing","enforcement","Nevada","Las Vegas","Pure Massage Spa","home salon","CEUs","reciprocity","NAC 644","city of Las Vegas","board meeting"]
Ending
The board chair closed the meeting after the last votes; staff said they will follow up in writing with licensees and owners who must comply with the board’s conditions and with petitioners ordered to pay, refunded or otherwise notified. Several petitioners were advised to contact board licensing staff before spending additional funds to change physical layouts or to apply for alternate licenses. The Sunflower Massage matter remains pending in district court and the board will not deliberate on it until the court resolves jurisdictional issues.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting