HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/09/22 Item 18w' ,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item . 1'$
Meeting Date 9/22/81
ITEM TITLE: Report on prc~_p_o_s.ed Ordinance amending Section 5.20 of the
Municipal Code regulating games permitted in card rooms
~f/r 1 4 5ths Vote: Yes No x )
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Safet~Jw-~ /uVJ ( ~
At the City Council meeting of September 8, 1981, the City Council
directed staff to bring back more justification for the various proposed
changes in the Cardroom Ordinance, and to specifically set forth the
current language in the Ordinance so comparisons can be made with the
recommendations. Council also directed staff to report on whether there
has been increased cost for policing the cardrooms.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: That Council: approve recommended changes to Ordinance
and bring back for first reading at next Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The specific recommendations for changing the Cardroom Ordinance are as
follows: ,~
• That Section 5.20.110 be amended to prohibit jackpots and to allow
the playing of hi-lo poker. This Section currently allows
draw poker, to-ball poker, contract or auction bridge.
2. That Section 5.20.180 be amended to increase the maximum allowable
bet from $20.00 to $30.00.
3. That Section 5.20.190 be amended to increase the maximum allowable
charge per player per hour from $2.50 to $4.00.
4. That Section 5.20.200 be amended to include the posting of signs
indicating that hi-lo is permitted, that jackpots are not permitted,
and that the maximum charge per hour is $4.00.
In April of 1981 we cited the management of the Yankee Dollar Cardroom
for violating Section 5.20.190 which specifies that "no charge in excess
of $2.50 per hour per player shall be collected from any player." We
had received a complaint that the Yankee Dollar was exceeding the
$2.50 limit and placing the extra money in a "jackpot" and awarding that
money to any player who held a hand consisting of ace, two, three, four
and six. However, the player can only win the jackpot when another
player, during the same aame., has ace, two, three, four and five. That
player will win the money on the table and the other player wins the
jackpot. The court did not convict the Yankee Dollar because we could
not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the $2.50 rate had been
violated. The court suggested that it would be easier to prove future
~es if we changed the Ordinance to prohibit jackpots.
l '~
Form A-113 (Rev. 11./79)
Page 2
•
I tem # 18
Mtg. Date 9/22/81
Since we went to four cardroom licenses in 19"17 we have seldom had
all four licenses operating. There have been many changes of management
in some of the cardrooms. The Village cardroom is the only one that
consistantly operates several tables whereas the other cardrooms operate
one or two tables. The only source of income that the cardroom has is
the $2.50 hourly charge for each player. If you are only operating
one or two tables it is very difficult to run a financially solvent
operation. This can result in the type of problem we have seen at the
Yankee Dollar whereby they have illegally taken more than the hourly
$2.50 and utilize the "jackpot" idea to appease the player. However,
this plan allows the management to keep any portion of the extra money
taken from the players instead of placing all of the money in the
jackpot.
The $2.50 per hour charge has remained unchanged for at least the last
sixteen years. Based on what has happened to the dollar over this same
period of time, I believe an increase in this rate is valid. The card-
room owner is a businessman and has the same need to make a profit as
any other businessman. If we continue to maintain the $2.50 rate we
placing a lid on his revenues while his costs of doing business
tinue to rise. It could be argued that the cardroom owner can increase
evenues even with a fixed hourly rate by increasing the number of players.
However, since we went from 2 cardrooms to 4 cardrooms we have not seen
anv increase in the number of card olavers in Chula Vista, and for that
reason this argument is not valid.
It is my recommendation that the hourly rate be raised to $4.00 which
would be a 60o increase from the current $2.50. I think this increase
is justified and I believe that it will tend to decrease enforcement
problems. If we increase the rate to $4.00 in Chula Vista that does
not mean that every cardroom would automatically increase to $4.00.
The management of each cardroom will have to "test the waters" in order
to determine what the players are willing to pay.
The $20. maximum bet limit has also been unchanged for a number of
years and warrants an increase because the value of the dollar has
drastically decreased and the card player of ten or fifteen years ago
has more money to bet. A reasonable increase in this rate will not
bring big gamblers into Chula Vista. Currently a player has the option
of sitting at a table with a five, ten or twenty dollar bet maximum.
This same choice will still exist if the betting rate is increased, but
the player will have the further option of sitting at a thirty dollar
table.
I am also recommending that
to split) be permitted.
lowest hand at a table
the combination of draw and to-ball poker
This means that the best high hand and
will split the pot. Since both hi and to-ball
~'ti
~~
O~
Page 3 '
Item # 18
Mtg. Date 9/22/81
poker are permitted, it does not seem unreasonable to allow the combination
which would give variety to the play.
The Chart attached to this report reflects the Ordinance or procedure
being followed in San Diego, Oceanside and Carlsbad compared with
Chula Vista.
The Police Department is generally not experiencing any increased costs
for policing the cardrooms. The number of complaints have not been
significant. Of course there have been increases in Peace Officer
salaries each year which in a sense increases the cost of policing.
At this time we do not recommend any change in the fees. The subject
of possible fee increases is now being studied on a broad base and
the cardroom fees will be considered along with all other fees.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
•
~v
~q
0
•
____.d--p---T-~ ~~'
~- __
Ck~uta Vi~~a, ~i
.~~~--
I Dated
~. , ..
•
C~
•
W
u
z
H
A
O
ti
O
O
a
A
U~
w
o,
Off,
~I
Hj
III
a.
O
U
til
H
A
m
a
a
U
W
A
H
C!J
!"'-+
W
U
O
H
O
O t7
U [=7
H
O A
H ~
A cn
H
H
~,
a~
~.
w
U.
a~
~ ~ ~
~ -~ ~ O
O ~ o .-i ~ t
v4~ N .'
ao N ~ Lr
~n ~ ~ ~ ~ Ri
~ o a ~ ~ °+
- • o ~
Sa o p., ~ . U
O ~
'? r-i O
aC U la ~ .-i ~
a aJ •~ w z A .~ W
dl
+> tr
U b
-1~ td -rl
to Sa l-t
A
to ~ ~ ~
.~-~ o ~~o
~ ~J ~ -r1
O [d N O ~-I U
o~s~ a~~
s~o ~~
~ ~
~~ ~~~5
O ~
0
U
f2, ~ -I
A r
~- ~ o
r-i •rl
(CS -1-1
,i~ U
t :j
O aS
r-i
~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ •~ s~ ti
N ~ RS .x -F~
~
}
~ t~ U U~
°
z sa b
~i •r~
~~
A U ,f1
~ - ----- -
---l
Q1
~~
I •,~
s o -N ~
r-t U .Q
~ rd
o ! o . S~
ir1 i o }-~ •N O
~ t•: •r-i
N { O ,~ U •{J
j N O D U
~ R, :~
. ,~
~ ; g .-~
~ ~ ~ ~d
QA~
~
.,
A
W
W H
H W O
w a
~~
~ a
a H
w
x
a a
x ~ c~
`~a+
O