Baltimore, counties urge action to avert highway‑user revenue 'cliff'

Local leaders and county officials urged the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee to give a favorable report to Senate Bill 288, which would change the distribution of highway user revenue (HUR) to provide greater, more predictable funding to local governments.

"We are finally starting to make progress on capital projects that are much needed," Brandon Scott, mayor of Baltimore, told the committee, adding that prior to 2010 Baltimore received roughly $200 million annually in HUR and that SB288 would mean an additional $22,500,000 for Baltimore City by fiscal 2031. "But as we know, HUR funding has not kept with the pace of inflation," he said.

Zeke Cohen, president of the Baltimore City Council, said students and commuters depend on reliable roads and that the proposed updates to the HUR formula would help restore a fairer local share. County representatives and trade groups echoed the urgency. "This bill will address the impending cliff that we are currently facing for highway user revenue," said a county association representative supporting the measure.

Multiple county public works directors described the real‑world consequences of the long decline in HUR allocations since the Great Recession. One witness said Hartford County currently receives approximately $5,500,000 in HUR and warned that any loss would force counties to absorb costly maintenance or defer critical projects. Dorchester County described resurfacing backlogs and environmental challenges that have multiplied maintenance needs after the cuts.

Maryland Association of Counties and other statewide organizations urged the committee that the bill would prevent an abrupt drop in local highway funding and preserve basic services such as snow removal and pothole repairs. Testimony noted that local governments do not have authority to raise dedicated transportation taxes and therefore rely on HUR distributions for routine maintenance and safety improvements.

The hearing closed with no committee vote recorded in the transcript. Witnesses asked for legislative language that protects the predictability of local capital planning while the committee continues review and possible amendment drafting.

What happens next: Supporters said they would continue to work with committee staff to refine legislative language; no vote was taken at the hearing.