MR. REEVES then said further, "As for the 75 cents versus 50 cents, I can tell you the history of that change. Originally it was 50 cents only on the Senate side for SB 97. The municipality of Anchorage submitted 50 cents and, I believe, had indicated that they would not support the bill if it allowed for more than 50 cents. Basically, the equipment and the system that we have to provide for 40,000 people is identical to the system that Anchorage provides to its population so its the same cost except that we're a large geographic area... It actually costs us more to provide the same 911 system that Anchorage provides. So we're real concerned about having the 75 cents go back down to 50 cents for us." Number 343 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I'm a little bit puzzled as to why this language gives rise to those concerns;" and addressed the concerns in detail. He said, "The fundamental concern that I have is that we don't get into a situation where one municipality effectively enacts a tax or surcharge on another municipality. Having said that, under Title 29, any municipality may enter into a contract with another municipality which effectively delegates their authority to set that particular surcharge." Number 364 MR. REEVES said, "My concern is that there's express language here that says the municipalities retain the power to set and amend the 911 surcharge... I think we already have the authority that this amendment would provide. When I look at this amendment, the only thing that I really see that stands out is that it says the municipalities, even if they contract cooperatively, will retain the power to set and amend the 911 surcharge... I can certainly see a possibility that one of the cities would come back now and say, well, we have the power to set the surcharge."