Baltimore committee advances 13¢ hike to per‑trip ride tax; projects about $2 million more a year

Baltimore City Council Budget & Appropriations Committee Chair Danielle McRae, Councilmember for the 2nd District, said the committee voted to recommend favorably Council Bill 25-0138, which would raise the city’s passenger-for-hire excess tax from $0.25 to $0.38 per trip.

"Today, I wanna make sure that we have 3 things clearly on the record regarding this bill, that we are speaking on revenue integrity," McRae said as the committee opened the hearing. The motion, moved favorably by Councilman Paris Gray, passed committee by roll call (three yes votes, two absences) and the bill will move to second reader at the full council meeting on Jan. 26.

The Department of Finance, represented at the hearing by Bob Sename, framed the change as part of the city’s newly released 10‑year financial plan and a step in the plan’s "tax competitiveness" work. "We want to be able to balance the budget, while also investing in the things that will help to improve and grow our city," Sename said during his presentation.

Finance officials told the committee the current 25¢ per‑trip charge generated about $3.8 million in fiscal 2025 and that, based on an estimate of roughly 15,000,000 originating rides in the city, a 38¢ rate would yield about $5.8 million — an incremental increase of roughly $2,000,000 annually. Finance noted the FY26 total was reduced in the budget due to timing and the statute‑required 120‑day implementation notice; staff estimated a partial FY26 yield of about $540,000.

Officials stressed that Maryland law requires local passenger‑for‑hire levies to be set as a flat dollar amount per trip rather than a percentage. Sename told the committee that the state law caps the per‑trip rate at 25¢ in most jurisdictions and that Baltimore City operates under an exemption that allows the city to set a higher local rate.

Committee members focused on three recurring issues: data and auditability, equity impacts for frequent users, and how the additional funds would be used. Chair McRae flagged the fiscal estimate’s assumption that ridership would not fall, saying, "The fiscal estimates assumes that this increase does not reduce ridership, and I wanna make sure that we understand the data the data behind it and what happens if reality does, in fact, look different." Finance replied that under the current state arrangement the city receives a quarterly remittance from the state comptroller but does not get provider‑level ride data and, as Sename put it plainly, "Today, we just get a check." He said the administration will seek increased transparency from the state comptroller and explore possible statutory changes.

Council members also questioned distribution and project targeting. The administration said state law requires the revenue be used for transportation‑related projects but that the amount is relatively small compared with the city’s overall transportation budget and had not been earmarked for a specific program. Vice President Sharon Green Middleton urged the administration to use the statutory 120‑day notice window to develop clear public messaging and outreach so riders understand the change.

Finance described a phased approach under discussion: staff earlier considered a 50¢ rate but recommended a smaller immediate increase with a review every five years to assess market response and whether further increases are warranted.

The committee recorded the motion as moved favorably by Councilman Paris Gray. Roll call recorded Chair McRae as yes; Schleifer absent; Vice President Middleton yes; and one other councilmember recorded as yes, yielding three affirmative recommendations and two absences. The bill will next appear for second reader at the full council meeting on Jan. 26.

The committee adjourned after the vote.