Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/04/1999 08:04 AM CRA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 4, 1999 8:04 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Andrew Halcro, Co-Chairman Representative John Harris, Co-Chairman Representative Carl Morgan Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative Fred Dyson Representative Reggie Joule Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT All members present. COMMITTEE CALENDAR *HOUSE BILL NO. 92 "An Act relating to municipal taxation of alcoholic beverages." - MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE *HOUSE BILL NO. 43 "An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for violations of municipal ordinances." - MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 92 SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF ALCOHOL SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/10/99 198 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/10/99 198 (H) CRA, FINANCE 3/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 43 SHORT TITLE: MUNI.ORDINANCES:POLICE TRAINING SURCHARGE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 29 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/99 1/19/99 29 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 29 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 3/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 513 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2693 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Sponsor of HB 92 and HB 43. ALICE JOHNSTONE, Legislative Chair Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse 213 Shotgun Alley Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-3931 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 92. MARY ROSENZWEIG Substance Abuse Directors Association 4111 Minnesota Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: (907) 258-6021 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 92. BRETT FRIED, Economist Income & Excise Audit Division Department of Revenue PO Box 110420 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420 Telephone: (907) 465-3682 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions. ANNE SCHULTZ, Acting Director Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse 240 Main Street, Suite 101 Juneau, Alaska Telephone: (907) 465-8920 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed community coalitions and local partnerships. JULIE KRAFFT, Director Member Services Alaska Municipal League 217 2nd Street Juneau, Alaska Telephone: (907) 586-1325 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed HB 92 and alcohol-related costs. VALERIE THERRIEN, Attorney Member Advisory Board on Alcohol & Drug Abuse 779 8th Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 465-8113 POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the importance of HB 92. LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner Department of Community & Regional Affairs PO Box 112100 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100 Telephone: (907) 465-2948 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 92. DOUG GRIFFIN, Director Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 550 West 7th Avenue #350 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 269-0350 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed alcohol tax. DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Davis Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 513 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2693 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 43. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel Legislative Legal and Research Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street Goldstein Building, Room 401 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 43. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-11, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO called the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Halcro, Harris, Morgan, Murkowski, Dyson, Joule and Kookesh. HB 92-MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF ALCOHOL Number 0004 CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that the first order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 92, "An Act relating to municipal taxation of alcoholic beverages." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, Sponsor of HB 92, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the committee packet includes the sponsor statement and other required documents. Representative Davis explained that currently statute says if a municipality has a sales tax, the municipality can tax alcohol at the rate of that sales tax. A municipality without a sales tax cannot tax alcohol. The legislation before the committee would take that statute off the books and allow municipalities to tax alcohol at any rate, but a sales tax ordinance must be initiated in order to tax alcohol. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that HB 92 came about due to the impacts of alcohol-related activity to a community. Legislation at the state level requires various programs for alcohol abuse and alcohol-related offenses which is costly, not to mention the costs incurred at hospitals, court systems, and the police departments. Municipalities should have the option to raise revenues to offset those costs which is what HB 92 achieves. Number 0329 ALICE JOHNSTONE, Legislative Chair, Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse, testified via teleconference from Sitka. She stated that the advisory board supports HB 92. A substantial amount of funds could be generated by allowing municipalities to place an additional tax on alcohol. During the two years that Sitka had a four percent tax on alcohol, in excess of $200,000 was collected. "Passage of this bill would allow communities, if they so choose, the option to recoup some of the tremendous costs of the numerous social, safety and health problems directly attributable to alcohol and in addition to participate in prevention and treatment of its misuse." The members of the Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse ask the committee to approve HB 92 without amendments. MARY ROSENZWEIG, Substance Abuse Directors Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She informed the committee that the association represents approximately 50 substance abuse treatment facilities, including prevention programs, around Alaska. The association supports HB 92 and anything reducing alcohol consumption. Research has found that a 10 percent increase in the sales price of alcohol reduces alcohol consumption by approximately three to four percent. Number 0593 BRETT FRIED, Economist, Income & Excise Audit Division, Department of Revenue, stated that he was present to answer questions. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that one of the fiscal notes indicates that HB 92 may cause the state to lose revenue due to a decrease in consumption of alcohol. The loss would be dependent on the communities and their adopted. MR. FRIED agreed with Co-Chairman Halcro's statement. ANNE SCHULTZ, Acting Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse, informed the committee that after the completion of the planning process, the board determined the primary strategy to promote positive change was to support community coalitions and local partnerships. On top of the board's support for HB 92 on the basis of taxation and reduced consumption, the board views HB 92 as a way for local communities to control the responsibilities they need to apply to resolving the abuse of alcoholism in their own communities. Number 0804 JULIE KRAFFT, Director, Member Services, Alaska Municipal League, informed the committee that HB 92 is and has been important legislation for the Alaska Municipal League and the Alaska Conference of Mayors. Given the current budget situation, the legislation is more important than ever. As pressure increases on local sales and property taxes, municipalities need additional tools to pay for public services. Ms. Krafft reiterated that under statute there is a special exemption on alcohol sales which prohibits local voters from establishing a higher level sales tax on alcohol. Ms. Krafft emphasized that merely removes that restriction with the approval of local voters; this is not a new tax. Alcohol abuse is the number one health and public safety problem in Alaska and alcohol sales should not receive a special exemption. MS. KRAFFT stressed that costs to local taxpayers related to alcohol use are stunning. She cited the following areas where alcohol-related costs are incurred: police costs for alcohol- related felonies and misdemeanors, police costs to transport public inebriates, emergency medical services, hospital emergency care costs, prosecutions, direct treatment and rehabilitation of alcohol abusers, increased costs of youth and family services related to alcohol use, repaired property damage to public facilities, health insurance costs paid by local governments, and school districts to treat alcohol-related problems. Last year, the Anchorage Community Health Promotion Program reported the following: alcohol is involved in 60 percent of motor vehicle crash fatalities, 65 percent of suicide attempts, 56 percent of total assaults, 56 percent of domestic violence, 53 percent of sexual assaults, 34-50 percent of homicides, and 83 percent of child abuse. MS. KRAFFT recognized that the state may continue to reduce support for services due to revenue shortfalls, therefore as the burden increases on local taxpayers, municipalities must be given the proper tools to deal with those burdens. Passage of HB 92 will provide an option to the voters in a community who are best able to determine how to allocate local taxes to provide critical local services. Number 1028 CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS requested Ms. Krafft explain the alcohol exemption. MS. KRAFFT explained that in 1985, Alaska considered raising the wholesale tax on alcohol which the industry did not favor. The industry agreed with the statute if the statute included language that would not allow municipalities to raise the alcohol tax individually in a community higher than the existing sales tax. She could not speak for the industry, but believed that the industry feared multiple tax rates across the state that the industry would have to fight. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if it is legal to have a differential sales tax on different commodities. MS. KRAFFT believed that a differential sales tax is already allowed on tobacco and hotel/motel tax. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that in some communities the liquor industry has made an effort to promote alcohol education programs such as the designated driver program. The fact remains that raising the tax does not necessarily impact consumption to those people being targeted. Co-Chairman Halcro asked if Ms. Krafft foresaw municipalities having the ability not only to recoup alcohol-related costs, but also providing the municipality with more leverage to go to the industry for more help. MS. KRAFFT believed that would be the case. If a local assembly put an increase in alcohol sales tax before the voters, the industry may come forward and offer other programs. Number 1284 VALERIE THERRIEN, Attorney Member, Advisory Board on Alcohol & Drug Abuse, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She informed the committee that she was testifying on behalf of the legislative committee. This legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation the board would like passed this year. A tax on alcohol would provide municipalities a revenue source to pay for the costs of alcohol and drug abuse in the community. Ms. Therrien reiterated that Sitka collected over $200,000 over the last two years from alcoholic beverage taxes. Fairbanks does tax alcohol. Ms. Therrien stressed that the board would like the support of the legislature on HB 92. LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community & Regional Affairs, supported HB 92. Mr. Cotten said that he wanted to echo Ms. Krafft's comments. As an ex-city manager, any additional tool that addresses the revenue issue and indirectly addresses alcohol use in a small community, must be given serious consideration. Number 1486 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the smaller communities and larger hub communities that have a damp status could benefit from this tax. Representative Joule supported HB 92, but understood the bill to only benefit those communities that permit the sale of alcohol. MR. COTTEN agreed that those communities that do not allow the event of the sale of alcohol would not benefit from this tax. Mr. Cotten mentioned that in the past, there had been some review of how to tax at the point of transfer or the point of delivery to a community and share that tax with the designated region. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE interpreted Mr. Cotten to mean that if a community with this tax placed a phone order and had the alcohol shipped, the tax could be imposed at the point of ordering. MR. COTTEN replied no. Mr. Cotten clarified that he was referring to one of the creative ways to address the issue to which Representative Joule seems to be speaking. The alcohol arrives at the town where it cannot be taxed, but due to the ability to import the alcohol the effects on the community remain; how can the tax be captured? Mr. Cotten reiterated that there has been review of taxing when alcohol enters a community and sharing that tax with all the areas in the region because the alcohol effects the entire region. No one has ever introduced such legislation. Number 1646 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the hub communities have the ability to create a central station for alcohol beverages coming in, damp communities in particular, and impose a tax at that point. Is that tax restricted to the amount of the local tax? MR. COTTEN did not know, but offered to provide that information. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if HB 92 passed, would the intent of the department be to decrease funding for community jails in communities with high numbers of alcohol-related prisoners. Would there be increased pressure for such communities to increase alcohol taxes in order to pay for jail services? MR. COTTEN believed this would be reviewed on a community by community basis. The funds cannot be designated and would be placed in the city's general fund. The use of these funds would be left to the discretion of the city. Some communities will utilize the funds to attack the issue of alcohol, while other strapped communities would utilize the funds wherever needed. On the local level, the differential tax rate would be sold by convincing the public there is a need in a particular area to justify the differential rate. Number 1825 DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Griffin believed what Representative Joule was referring to is in Title 4 which deals with alcoholic beverages. Title 4 does allow communities to establish a community delivery site which would usually be established in damp communities. A community delivery site is one step removed from a community liquor store which is also an option for communities. The ABC Board promotes the use of community delivery sites as a manner in which to establish more local control over the amount of alcohol entering a community. The community delivery does afford the community the ability to levy existing sales tax on that product. If HB 92 is enacted, a differential tax could be levied and collected at the local level. Mr. Griffin clarified that the ABC Board does not get involved with the taxation of alcohol, but he did want to note the dove-tailing of HB 92 with the ABC Board's effort to promote community delivery sites. Currently, Bethel and Barrow are reviewing establishing a community delivery system by local ordinance. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to the history of the current exemption. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that he was not sure what prompted the legislation as it stands. In summary, Representative Davis said this is a local control issue. With regard to the impact of HB 92 on state revenues, legislation related to alcohol issues have been around forever and alcohol remains a big seller. Representative Davis believed that alcohol consumption may feel an initial hit, but would increase shortly thereafter. With regard to the question of how municipalities may spend the money, Representative Davis informed the committee that prior legislation attempted to mandate to the municipalities that any money generated from a tax under such legislation be directed to alcohol activities. After researching the issue, it was discovered that the legislature should not mandate municipalities to dedicate funds. Representative Davis did not believe the legislature had the legal authority to mandate municipalities to dedicate funds. The concerns about wet and damp communities seems to be another issue. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO believed that HB 92 provides municipalities the opportunity to utilize local control by going before its residents to get approval for such a tax. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained that the initial impetus for HB 92 was that there are many reductions in municipal assistance and revenue sharing and the option provided in HB 92 would be another tool in the municipality's tool box that could compensate for the restrictions. Number 2244 CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS moved to report HB 92 out of committee with individual recommendations and the three accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered. HB 43-MUNI.ORDINANCES:POLICE TRAINING SURCHARGE Number 2270 CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that the next order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 43, "An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for violations of municipal ordinances." The committee took a brief at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:37 a.m. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, Sponsor of HB 43, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the need for HB 43 came to his attention after the Kenai Borough Attorney saw technical and legal problems with the legislation. Representative Davis read the sponsor statement as follows: The Police Training Fund was established to provide training for the law enforcement and corrections community of the state. Appropriations to this fund may be made from income derived from the imposition of surcharges on criminal convictions. Last year, legislation was passed expanding the types of crimes for which a surcharge is imposed and increasing the amount of the surcharge applied. This surcharge is imposed on both state and municipal law violations. Recently, concern was raised that the phrasing used in the legislation could be interpreted as requiring surcharges to be imposed on civil as well as criminal violations of the law. Additionally, it was argued that if a local government did not authorize the imposition of a surcharge, an entire ordinance could be found invalid rather than just the section imposing the fine. House Bill 43 is a housecleaning measure to address these two concerns. First, the legislation clarifies that the surcharge will be imposed on a violation of a municipal ordinance that imposes a criminal penalty for its violation. Second, this legislation specifies that the municipality can not enforce (or collect) a penalty for a violation unless the municipality also authorizes the imposition of a surcharge on a violation. DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Davis, said that she was present to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if a surcharge could be dedicated. MS. DAVIDSON stated that the surcharge is not dedicated. The Police Training Fund has been designated in statute. Ms. Davidson explained that the money collected from the surcharge is collected and placed in the general fund where it is accounted for as is the case for other designated funds. The intent is to place the surcharge funds in the designated Police Training Fund, but Ms. Davidson did not believe the legislature could actually mandate such. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS informed the committee that legislation in this regard usually uses the following language, "legislation can be" rather than "shall be" which circumvents the constitutional prohibition of dedication. Number 2537 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI assumed that there have been some problems in the application of the surcharge which lead to the concerns resulting in HB 43. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS understood that to date there had not been any problems. He pointed out that the original legislation would not allow municipalities to collect the surcharge until the municipality passes an ordinance which was of concern. MS. DAVIDSON was not aware of any problems. The letter from the Kenai Borough expressed concern that the legislation could be interpreted as applying to the criminal and civil penalties. Further concern arose because certain municipal ordinances use language that, under the original legislation, would result in the inability to enforce an ordinance unless the surcharge was collected. Number 2644 MS. DAVIDSON, upon Representative Davis' request, used the following example: if a person needing a building permit for an addition to a home did not obtain a building permit, there would be a $50 fine issued for this civil penalty. The concern arose from the language in HB 43 which does not differentiate between criminal and civil penalties and therefore, the civil penalty would have a surcharge imposed upon it. There was also concern that if a municipality did not authorize the imposition of a surcharge, the municipality could not impose the fine for the civil penalty nor could the municipality enforce the building permit requirement due to the phrase "cannot enforce an ordinance". The concern that under the previous language, all aspects of an ordinance could be argued invalid rather than only the penalty portion. The concern lead to the changes in Section 2 of HB 43. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked if he were to violate an ordinance, would he pay that fine in his bail to the municipality or does the state send out a bill. MS. DAVIDSON said that when a ticket, for example a traffic ticket, is issued the ticket lists the surcharge; all charges are included. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO understood that once the municipality collects the fine, the money is transmitted to the state where it is placed in the general fund. According to the language on page 2, lines 18-19, the municipality would be reimbursed up to 10 percent of the fine. Then the state places that in the general fund to be distributed and goes into a general police training fund. Is it prorated for the municipality's contribution? He inquired as to the destination of the redistribution of the funds. MS. DAVIDSON noted that this was an amendment that Senate Finance placed in the legislation last year. There was discussion whether the court system or municipality should keep the 10 percent of the collection or the entire surcharge given to the state to be appropriated back to the municipality. The Senate Finance committee preferred the entire surcharge to come to the state who would then decide what percentage up to 10 percent the municipality would be reimbursed. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to how the percentage is determined. Number 2896 MS. DAVIDSON did not know. With regard to the reimbursement of the municipalities, last year's Senate Finance committee determined that the entire surcharge would be collected and then a portion reappropriated back out. If the funds are placed in the Police Training Fund, that fund may be appropriated to the Department of Public Safety to the Police Standards Council for the State Trooper Academy in Sitka or to municipal police training academies meeting the Alaska Police Standards Council requirements. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that the placement of the funds in the state's general fund is a way to increase state jobs rather than have the jobs at the local level. TAPE 99-11, SIDE B MS. DAVIDSON understood that the court system already has an accounting system in place to estimate the money coming in. She informed the committee that last year, Anchorage was not concerned with the collection. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked if the funding for the Police Training Fund was dollar for dollar. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified that would be the legislature's decision with the appropriation of dollars to the various funds. Last year, the surcharge was estimated to bring in $1.2 million per year. Whether that money is kept in the general fund or rolled into the training fund is up to the legislature. In further response to Co-Chairman Halcro, Representative Davis was not sure of the time taken for the state to reimburse the municipality. He deferred that question to Ms. Shaw. Representative Davis believed that the municipalities would benefit from the Police Training Fund whether the municipalities receive money back or not. Representative Davis believed if there was no one else to testify, it would be beneficial for Jerry Luckhaupt to testify. Number 2800 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research, Legislative Affairs Agency, said that HB 43 makes minor changes to the changes made last year. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the Alaska Court System had concerns with the legislature's ability to require the imposition of a surcharge on a violation of a municipal ordinance which was addressed by requiring the municipality to impose the surcharge otherwise the ordinance could not be enforced. Now there are concerns with that language because municipalities enact entire bodies of ordinances of which some may not have penalties. The concern was that the language could prevent the municipality from enforcing the entire ordinance. Mr. Luckhaupt did not entirely agree with that interpretation, but the concerns were addressed in HB 43. He informed the committee that there have not been any problems and that no one has lost a case on this issue yet. Only letters between attorneys have raised the possibility of a problem. MR. LUCKHAUPT pointed out that the substantive portion of HB 43 is Section 2 where the following change is made, "A municipality many not enforce a penalty for violation of an ordinance for which a surcharge is required to be imposed ..." which he feels addresses the possibility that a municipality could enforce any other portion of an ordinance that does not deal with the penalty. Further, the imposition of the penalty was confined to criminal violations or violations of municipal ordinances that had a penalty enforced through the criminal courts. MR. LUCKHAUPT recognized that there was also concern the legislation would prevent municipalities from enforcing their ordinance through civil means. He informed the committee that a government can utilize two methods of coercion to enforce compliance. One method is through a criminal or quasi criminal process. He explained that the process would be criminal if the prosecution is for a felony or misdemeanor penalty while the process would be quasi criminal if it's a noncriminal infraction or violation. For example, traffic tickets are infractions and noncriminal by definition and do not have criminal penalties attached, but traffic tickets are still enforced through the criminal courts. There is also the civil process for enforcing ordinances or statutes and those are enforced through the civil courts and may have a penalty attached, a civil judgment not a fine. MR. LUCKHAUPT addressed the earlier references to dedicated funds by emphasizing that the surcharge cannot be dedicated. The legislature establishes a fund and the money to be placed in the fund is accounted for separately and the legislature appropriates the money into the fund. The statute will say, "the legislature may appropriate, in this case, the surcharge money to the fund." Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that there is a problem with allowing the municipality to keep the 10 percent at the time of collection. The statute says that the reimbursement may not exceed 10 percent which leaves the percentage in the hands of the legislature. Further, this is state revenue and must be appropriated. Last year Senate Finance determined that the municipality should not receive more than 10 percent of the surcharge because the legislature did not want to create a windfall if the municipality's efforts to collect the surcharge were fairly minor. Mr. Luckhaupt reiterated that if the legislation allowed the municipality to keep 10 percent of the surcharge, it would become a dedicated fund which the legislature cannot do. Number 2365 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the issues regarding civil and criminal proceedings were brought up last year. MR. LUCKHAUPT said there was discussion on those issues from Representative Porter and Senator Donley. In last year's legislation, there is a cut off in which the fine must be greater than $30 in order to assess the surcharge. That language was in response to parking tickets of which many are less than $30 and a surcharge was not desired for those violations. Mr. Luckhaupt noted that at the time the surcharge was addressed in Title 12 which deals with criminal procedure and sentencing. At the time, he felt that they were dealing with the criminal enforcement mechanisms. Some violations of building codes are criminal; the municipality chooses to enforce that through a civil or criminal process. Often, municipalities have chosen to enforce violations thought of as civil in criminal courts, therefore this surcharge would apply to those violations. That was noted in the committee process last year. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS emphasized that the changes in HB 43 address the concerns of the municipalities to date. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if Representative Davis believed that the money collected from the surcharge is going to police training. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied yes. Last year's legislation expanded the surcharge law, but this year will be the first year the legislature will have the ability to appropriate additional funds. Representative Davis believed that in the past, all the surcharge funds were allocated to the police training fund. Number 1982 CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS moved to report HB 43 out of committee with individual recommendations and the two accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Community & Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:13 a.m.