N-CSRS

Item 1: Report to Shareholders

Summit Municipal Income Fund April 30, 2006 

The views and opinions in this report were current as of April 30, 2006. They are not guarantees of performance or investment results and should not be taken as investment advice. Investment decisions reflect a variety of factors, and the managers reserve the right to change their views about individual stocks, sectors, and the markets at any time. As a result, the views expressed should not be relied upon as a forecast of the fund’s future investment intent. The report is certified under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires mutual funds and other public companies to affirm that, to the best of their knowledge, the information in their financial reports is fairly and accurately stated in all material respects.

REPORTS ON THE WEB

Sign up for our E-mail Program, and you can begin to receive updated fund reports and prospectuses online rather than through the mail. Log in to your account at troweprice.com for more information.

Fellow Shareholders

Bond returns were mostly lackluster in the six-month period ended April 30, 2006. High-yield securities appreciated, but the performance of higher-quality securities was subdued because of rising interest rates amid solid economic growth. During the first half of our fiscal year, bond prices fell and yields rose across almost all maturities as the Federal Reserve gradually lifted the federal funds target rate to 4.75%. Tax-free municipal bond returns surpassed those of their taxable counterparts, led by long-term and lower-quality securities. The Summit Municipal Funds extended their favorable long-term performance records and surpassed their benchmarks during our reporting period.

ECONOMY AND INTEREST RATES

The economy accelerated at the beginning of 2006, expanding at a robust annualized rate of 4.8% in the first quarter (according to initial estimates) versus a sluggish 1.7% in the final quarter of 2005 following last year’s hurricane assault on the Gulf Coast. Manufacturing activity was sturdy, business and consumer spending patterns appeared to be healthy, and the unemployment rate dipped to 4.7%. In addition, the red-hot housing market has been cooling off, and inflation, despite elevated commodity prices, remained generally contained.

Nevertheless, central bank officials believe that stronger-than-expected economic growth and a renewed increase in energy costs have the potential to push inflation higher. In response, the Federal Reserve—now led by Ben Bernanke following Alan Greenspan’s retirement at the end of January—raised the federal funds target rate in the last six months from 3.75% to 4.75%, a level the short-term benchmark has not seen in more than four years. After our reporting period, the Fed increased the target rate to 5.00% on May 10. The central bank has now lifted the target rate 16 times in just under two years.

Municipal money market yields rose with the fed funds rate in the last six months. Intermediate-term rates increased to a lesser extent and long-term rates were little changed. As a result, the yield difference across the maturity spectrum narrowed. In the first half of our fiscal year, municipal bonds did better than their taxable counterparts: the Lehman Brothers Municipal Bond Index returned 1.56% versus 0.56% for the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Index.

In recent months, there have been growing signs that the Fed may soon stop—at least temporarily—increasing short-term interest rates. According to the minutes for the Fed’s late-March monetary policy meeting, many central bank officials believed “that the end of the tightening process was likely to be near, and some expressed concerns about the dangers of tightening too much, given the lags in the effects of policy.” In addition, Fed Chairman Bernanke in late April testified to Congress that central bank officials, while reviewing new economic data, may “at some point…decide to take no action at one or more meetings.”

MUNICIPAL MARKET NEWS

New municipal borrowing in the first four months of 2006 totaled more than $98 billion, but this was approximately 25% lower than in the same period last year, according to The Bond Buyer. Refunding issuance fell even more dramatically—by more than 50%—as the pool of issues that could be refunded at lower interest rates began to evaporate. Demand from individual investors and mutual funds, as well as from institutional investors, hedge funds, and various nontraditional buyers of municipals, was steady, which supported the municipal market in the face of rising rates. Overall credit quality remained good, as state governments continued to amass tax revenues stemming from a strong economy.

Lower-quality bonds outperformed investment-grade issues, as they have for most of the last two years. In fact, high-yield debt and, to a lesser extent, bonds rated BBB—the lowest tier of the investment-grade universe—trounced higher-quality issues in the first quarter. Hospital and industrial and pollution control revenue bonds fared well, while general obligations and other high-quality sectors posted more modest returns.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW

Summit Municipal Money Market Fund

Your fund returned 1.33% in the first half of our fiscal year and 2.41% for the 12-month period ended April 30, 2006. As shown in the Performance Comparison table, the fund topped its Lipper benchmark in both periods.

The fund’s record relative to its competitors over the last decade has been excellent. Lipper ranked the fund in the top 7% of the Lipper tax-exempt money market funds universe for the five-year period ended March 31, 2006. The fund was also ranked in the top 9% for the 10-year period and the top 11% for the one- and three-year periods ended March 31, 2006. (Based on cumulative total return, Lipper ranked the Summit Municipal Money Market Fund 12 out of 114, 11 out of 104, 6 out of 93, and 7 out of 80 funds for the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods ended March 31, 2006, respectively. Results will vary for other time periods. Past performance cannot guarantee future results.)

Money market yields rose in the last six months, responding to further tightening by the Federal Reserve. Since our last report to you, the fund’s seven-day simple dividend yield increased from 2.28% to 3.14%. Extending a pattern we have discussed previously, the money markets continued to underestimate the full implications of Fed policy intent; instead, we see money market rates rising incrementally and only in response to actual Fed rate increases.

In the past six months, yields on longer maturities in both the taxable and tax-exempt markets rose in tandem: the one-year LIBOR, a taxable benchmark (see Glossary), increased 61 basis points to 5.33%, while one-year municipal notes advanced 60 basis points to 3.70%. (One basis point equals 0.01%.) Similarly, overnight and seven-day variable rates rose approximately 55 to 60 basis points, averaging 3.00% to 3.10% during our reporting period. The combination of higher rates and the continuing favorable tax relationship between municipal and taxable securities resulted in record asset levels in the municipal money market.

In general, the overall investment environment has provided few incentives to invest in money market securities that mature beyond the next Fed meeting. In response, our strategy in the last six months was to focus on exploiting those few buying opportunities that resulted from temporary supply/demand imbalances. As year-end 2005 approached and in the wake of April 15 tax-related outflows, we took advantage of attractive yields on somewhat longer-dated maturities, resulting in the portfolio’s weighted average maturity (WAM) averaging about 15 days longer than that of our peer group. This strategy helped dampen some of the downside yield volatility associated with our variable rate holdings (which represent about 60% of the portfolio) while leaving us nimble enough to benefit from rising rates.

Looking forward, we see a number of challenges. The Fed has more work to do, but future rate increases may be more irregular than in the past two years. Within the municipal market, the strong economy is generating higher tax receipts for state and local governments, reducing the need for short-term borrowing in June and July. Meanwhile, money fund yields are poised to move higher, suggesting that demand for short-term securities will remain high.

Summit Municipal Intermediate Fund

Your fund returned 1.37% in the first half of our fiscal year and 1.56% for the 12-month period ended April 30, 2006. As shown in the Performance Comparison table, the fund exceeded its Lipper benchmark in both periods. In the last six months, the fund earned $0.20 dividend income, but its net asset value (NAV) declined $0.05, from $10.81 to $10.76. For the 12-month period, the fund earned $0.39 dividend income, but its NAV dropped $0.22, from $10.98 to $10.76.

The fund’s performance relative to its competitors over the last decade has been very favorable. Lipper ranked the fund in the top 17% of the Lipper intermediate municipal debt funds universe for the 10-year period ended March 31, 2006. Lipper also ranked the fund in the top 20% of the category for the three-year period. (Based on cumulative total return, Lipper ranked the Summit Municipal Intermediate Fund 33 out of 150, 26 out of 131, 19 out of 104, and 12 out of 70 funds for the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods ended March 31, 2006, respectively. Results will vary for other time periods. Past performance cannot guarantee future results.)

Returns on intermediate-term municipal bonds have been well below average. The Lipper Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Average returned a little more than 1% in the last 12 months—a sharp contrast to the 5.36% average annual return for the Lehman Brothers Municipal Bond 1-15 Year Blend (1-17 Year Maturity) Index over the 10-year period ended April 30, 2006. On a more positive note, yields are higher than they have been for a few years. In the last six months, two-year rates rose 50 basis points, while 15-year bond yields increased about 15 basis points. (One basis point equals 0.01%.) In light of higher yields and a flatter yield curve, we expect to see improved intermediate-term bond performance going forward.

During our six-month reporting period, our strategy was to keep the portfolio’s duration fairly close to that of the benchmark while occasionally extending it or reducing it opportunistically, depending on our view of the municipal bond market. With shorter-term yields increasing, we shifted some assets from one- to three-year securities. Although Fed tightening may weigh on three-year municipal issues in the near term, we think their attractiveness relative to taxable alternatives will provide reasonable price support if rates should rise. In addition, we are looking for opportunities to sell some of our longer-term securities (which helped our performance) in favor of attractively valued intermediate-term bonds in the 7- to 10-year range, whose yields are not much lower than long-term bonds.

High-yield securities have done very well, and our small allocation helped our results in the last six months. By all measures, high-yield bonds are richly valued, yet we have still found opportunities among life-care, land development, and project finance bonds. We are selectively looking for opportunities to swap lower-quality bonds for higher-quality issues if we believe specific higher-yielding bonds are overvalued. In the investment-grade universe, we continue to like economically sensitive credits such as California, New York, and New York City general obligation bonds because we believe their fundamentals continue to improve.

Summit Municipal Income Fund

Your fund returned 1.84% in the first half of our fiscal year and 2.88% in the 12-month period ended April 30, 2006. As shown in the Performance Comparison table, the fund surpassed its Lipper benchmark in both periods. In the last six months, the fund earned $0.23 dividend income, but its net asset value slipped $0.03, from $10.97 to $10.94. For the 12-month period, the fund earned $0.47 dividend income, which more than offset a $0.15 decline in the NAV.

The fund’s record versus its competitors over the last decade is remarkable. Lipper ranked the fund in the top 4% of the general municipal debt funds category for the 10-year period ended March 31, 2006. Lipper also ranked the fund in the top 8% of the category for the five-year period ended March 31, 2006. (Based on cumulative total return, Lipper ranked the Summit Municipal Income Fund 28 out of 256, 28 out of 249, 16 out of 220, and 5 out of 142 funds for the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods ended March 31, 2006, respectively. Results will vary for other time periods. Past performance cannot guarantee future results.)

Since our last report to you, we continued our strategy of underweighting municipal bonds maturing in three to 10 years in favor of shorter-term securities and bonds maturing in 15 to 30 years. This portfolio structure was advantageous for most of our reporting period, though shorter-term issues held up better than longer term in the last couple of months as interest rates rose across the maturity spectrum.

Some of our better-performing holdings in the last six months included life-care bonds, as several holdings were prerefunded to early call dates. Generally, lower-rated credits, including life-care, produced solid returns due to their yield advantage and the narrowing of the yield difference between higher- and lower-quality issues. (Lower-quality bonds usually have higher yields to compensate investors for the additional credit risk.) In light of the current interest rate environment and our preference for greater selectivity among lower-grade bonds, we reduced our exposure to below investment-grade securities in favor of issues rated AAA and A, which we believe represent greater relative value. (Please note that we now use Moody’s, rather than S&P, as the primary source to determine a bond’s credit rating.)

We extended the portfolio’s duration from 5.5 years to 5.9 years in the last six months, which represents a neutral posture relative to our benchmark. New purchases for the portfolio remained defensive in nature, as we continued to target premium coupon bonds trading to their call dates instead of discounted coupon bonds trading to their maturity dates. The former have a shorter effective duration and should be less sensitive to rising interest rates.

Based on indications that the Federal Reserve is nearing the end of its tightening cycle, we have begun to trim our emphasis on long-term bonds in favor of some shorter-term securities that we believe will outperform in the near term. The portfolio’s duration will likely remain close to neutral as we attempt to lock in higher yields offered in the current environment. In addition, we are taking advantage of higher interest rates by selling some lower-yielding holdings to realize capital losses (and purchasing similar, higher-yielding bonds with the sale proceeds) to offset capital gains and increase the fund’s tax efficiency.

OUTLOOK

The cumulative effect of 16 fed funds rate hikes over the last 24 months has slowly worn down the bond market’s resistance to higher yields, especially on the short end of the yield curve. Two-year Treasury yields are now at their highest levels in five years, whereas 30-year yields are not much higher than they were one year ago. When long-term rates were well above short-term rates at the beginning of the Fed’s tightening cycle, we believed long-term bonds offered good value. Now that the Treasury yield curve has flattened, there is more value among shorter-term securities, which offer roughly the same yields as long-term securities but have less interest rate risk.

Given the strong U.S. economy and the potential for at least one more rate increase from the Federal Reserve, bond yields are likely to continue rising modestly, and long-term rates may not be as stable as they have been over the last two years. In addition, today’s currently narrow credit spreads—that is, the difference in yields between bonds of varying credit quality—may widen as investors become less willing to take on risk. The good news is that investors can receive higher levels of tax-free income, especially from short- and intermediate-term municipal bonds. Inflation has remained tame but will be a key driver of interest rates as we wait to see whether wage growth and rising energy prices feed through into the rest of the economy.

With the municipal yield curve maintaining a positive slope—that is, long-term yields remain higher than short-term yields—and supply likely to diminish in 2006, we see good value in municipal bonds relative to taxable bonds. In some cases, high-yield issues are attractive relative to high-quality munis, even though credit spreads are fairly tight. While municipal rates have not risen as much as Treasury rates, municipal bonds are still a desirable fixed-income option for investors in higher tax brackets. In fact, munis—which have performed relatively well as interest rates have risen over the last two years—could continue to outperform Treasuries if rates continue to rise. Regardless of the direction of rates, we will continue to use our proprietary research to uncover the best credit opportunities and selectively invest in attractive income-producing tax-free securities.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph K. Lynagh
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Summit Municipal Money Market Fund

Charles B. Hill
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Summit Municipal Intermediate Fund

Konstantine B. Mallas
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Summit Municipal Income Fund

May 17, 2006

The committee chairman has day-to-day responsibility for managing the portfolio and works with committee members in developing and executing the fund’s investment program.

RISKS OF INVESTING IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES

Funds that invest in municipal securities are subject to price declines due to rising interest rates, with long-term securities generally most sensitive to rate fluctuations. Other risks include credit rating downgrades, defaults on scheduled interest and principal payments, and the possibility that municipal securities will, because of legislation or a significant restructuring of federal income tax rates, lose their advantage as a source of tax-free income.

RISKS OF INVESTING IN MONEY MARKET SECURITIES

Since money market funds are managed to maintain a constant $1.00 share price, they should have little risk of principal loss. However, there is no assurance the fund will avoid principal losses if fund holdings default or are downgraded or if interest rates rise sharply in an unusually short period. In addition, the fund’s yield will vary; it is not fixed for a specific period like the yield on a bank certificate of deposit. An investment in the fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other government agency. Although a money market fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in it.

GLOSSARY

Average maturity: The average of the stated maturity dates of a bond or money market portfolio’s securities. The average maturity for a money market fund is measured in days, whereas a bond fund’s average maturity is measured in years. In general, the longer the average maturity, the greater the fund’s sensitivity to interest rate changes, which means greater price fluctuation.

Duration: The average time (expressed in years) needed for an investor to receive the present value of the future cash flows on a fixed-income investment. It is used to measure a bond or bond fund’s sensitivity to interest rate changes. For example, a fund with a five-year duration would fall about 5% in price in response to a one-percentage-point increase in interest rates, and vice versa.

Fed funds target rate: An overnight lending rate set by the Federal Reserve and used by banks to meet reserve requirements. Banks also use the fed funds rate as a benchmark for their prime lending rates.

Inflation: A sustained increase in prices throughout the economy.

LIBOR: A taxable money market benchmark.

Yield curve: A graphic depiction of the relationship between yields and maturity dates for a set of similar securities, such as Treasuries or municipal securities. Yield curves typically slope upward, indicating that longer maturities offer higher yields. When the yield curve is flat, there is little or no difference between the yields offered by shorter- and longer-term securities.

GROWTH OF $25,000 

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $25,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPOUND TOTAL RETURN

This table shows how the fund would have performed each year if its actual (or cumulative) returns for the periods shown had been earned at a constant rate.

GROWTH OF $25,000 

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $25,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPOUND TOTAL RETURN

This table shows how the fund would have performed each year if its actual (or cumulative) returns for the periods shown had been earned at a constant rate.

GROWTH OF $25,000 

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $25,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPOUND TOTAL RETURN

This table shows how the fund would have performed each year if its actual (or cumulative) returns for the periods shown had been earned at a constant rate.

FUND EXPENSE EXAMPLE

As a mutual fund shareholder, you may incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads, and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, and other fund expenses. The following example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the most recent six-month period and held for the entire period.

Actual Expenses
The first line of the following table (“Actual”) provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with your account balance, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes
The information on the second line of the table (“Hypothetical”) is based on hypothetical account values and expenses derived from the fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed 5% per year rate of return before expenses (not the fund’s actual return). You may compare the ongoing costs of investing in the fund with other funds by contrasting this 5% hypothetical example and the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period.

Note: T. Rowe Price charges an annual small-account maintenance fee of $10, generally for accounts with less than $2,000 ($500 for UGMA/UTMA). The fee is waived for any investor whose T. Rowe Price mutual fund accounts total $25,000 or more, accounts employing automatic investing, and IRAs and other retirement plan accounts that utilize a prototype plan sponsored by T. Rowe Price (although a separate custodial or administrative fee may apply to such accounts). This fee is not included in the accompanying table. If you are subject to the fee, keep it in mind when you are estimating the ongoing expenses of investing in the fund and when comparing the expenses of this fund with other funds.

You should also be aware that the expenses shown in the table highlight only your ongoing costs and do not reflect any transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads. Therefore, the second line of the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. To the extent a fund charges transaction costs, however, the total cost of owning that fund is higher.

Unaudited

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Unaudited

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Unaudited

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.



Unaudited

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Unaudited

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Unaudited

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

NOTE 1 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

T. Rowe Price Summit Municipal Funds, Inc. (the corporation), is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act). The Summit Municipal Income Fund (the fund), a diversified, open-end management investment company, is one portfolio established by the corporation. The fund commenced operations on October 29, 1993. The fund seeks a high level of income exempt from federal income taxes.

The accompanying financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, which require the use of estimates made by fund management. Fund management believes that estimates and security valuations are appropriate; however, actual results may differ from those estimates, and the security valuations reflected in the financial statements may differ from the value the fund ultimately realizes upon sale of the securities.

Valuation The fund values its investments and computes its net asset value per share at the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), normally 4 p.m. ET, each day that the NYSE is open for business. Debt securities are generally traded in the over-the-counter market. Securities are valued at prices furnished by dealers who make markets in such securities or by an independent pricing service, which considers yield or price of bonds of comparable quality, coupon, maturity, and type, as well as prices quoted by dealers who make markets in such securities.

Other investments, including restricted securities, and those for which the above valuation procedures are inappropriate or are deemed not to reflect fair value are stated at fair value as determined in good faith by the T. Rowe Price Valuation Committee, established by the fund’s Board of Directors.

Investment Transactions, Investment Income, and Distributions Income and expenses are recorded on the accrual basis. Premiums and discounts on debt securities are amortized for financial reporting purposes. Investment transactions are accounted for on the trade date. Realized gains and losses are reported on the identified cost basis. Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income distributions are declared on a daily basis and paid monthly. Capital gain distributions, if any, are declared and paid by the fund, typically on an annual basis.

NOTE 2 - INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS

Consistent with its investment objective, the fund engages in the following practices to manage exposure to certain risks or enhance performance. The investment objective, policies, program, and risk factors of the fund are described more fully in the fund’s prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

Restricted Securities The fund may invest in securities that are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale. Although certain of these securities may be readily sold, for example, under Rule 144A, others may be illiquid, their sale may involve substantial delays and additional costs, and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult.

Other Purchases and sales of portfolio securities, other than short-term securities, aggregated $79,184,000 and $12,017,000, respectively, for the six months ended April 30, 2006.

NOTE 3 - FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

No provision for federal income taxes is required since the fund intends to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code and distribute to shareholders all of its income and gains. Federal income tax regulations differ from generally accepted accounting principles; therefore, distributions determined in accordance with tax regulations may differ in amount or character from net investment income and realized gains for financial reporting purposes. Financial reporting records are adjusted for permanent book/tax differences to reflect tax character. Financial records are not adjusted for temporary differences. The amount and character of tax-basis distributions and composition of net assets are finalized at fiscal year-end; accordingly, tax-basis balances have not been determined as of April 30, 2006.

The fund intends to retain realized gains to the extent of available capital loss carryforwards. As of April 30, 2006, the fund had $1,115,000 of capital loss carryforwards that expire in fiscal 2008.

At April 30, 2006, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $218,778,000. Net unrealized gain aggregated $3,237,000 at period-end, of which $4,609,000 related to appreciated investments and $1,372,000 related to depreciated investments.

NOTE 4 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

The fund is managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (the manager or Price Associates), a wholly owned subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. The investment management and administrative agreement between the fund and the manager provides for an all-inclusive annual fee equal to 0.50% of the fund’s average daily net assets. The fee is computed daily and paid monthly. The agreement provides that investment management, shareholder servicing, transfer agency, accounting, and custody services are provided to the fund, and interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, directors’ fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses are paid directly by the fund.

INFORMATION ON PROXY VOTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RECORDS

A description of the policies and procedures used by T. Rowe Price funds and portfolios to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available in each fund’s Statement of Additional Information, which you may request by calling 1-800-225-5132 or by accessing the SEC’s Web site, www.sec.gov. The description of our proxy voting policies and procedures is also available on our Web site, www.troweprice.com. To access it, click on the words “Company Info” at the top of our homepage for individual investors. Then, in the window that appears, click on the “Proxy Voting Policy” navigation button in the top left corner.

Each fund’s most recent annual proxy voting record is available on our Web site and through the SEC’s Web site. To access it through our Web site, follow the directions above, then click on the words “Proxy Voting Record” at the bottom of the Proxy Voting Policy page.

HOW TO OBTAIN QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

The fund files a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The fund’s Form N-Q is available electronically on the SEC’s Web site (www.sec.gov); hard copies may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, DC 20549. For more information on the Public Reference Room, call 1-800-SEC-0330.

APPROVAL OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

On March 8, 2006, the fund’s Board of Directors unanimously approved the investment advisory contract (Contract) between the fund and its investment manager, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Manager). The Board considered a variety of factors in connection with its review of the Contract, also taking into account information provided by the Manager during the course of the year, as discussed below:

Services Provided by the Manager
The Board considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided to the fund by the Manager. These services included, but were not limited to, management of the fund’s portfolio and a variety of activities related to portfolio management. The Board also reviewed the background and experience of the Manager’s senior management team and investment personnel involved in the management of the fund. The Board concluded that it was satisfied with the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided by the Manager.

Investment Performance of the Fund
The Board reviewed the fund’s average annual total return over the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods as well as the fund’s year-by-year returns and compared these returns with a wide variety of previously agreed upon comparable performance measures and market data, including those supplied by Lipper and Morningstar, which are independent providers of mutual fund data. On the basis of this evaluation and the Board’s ongoing review of investment results, the Board concluded that the fund’s performance was satisfactory.

Costs, Benefits, Profits, and Economies of Scale
The Board reviewed detailed information regarding the revenues received by the Manager under the Contract and other benefits that the Manager (and its affiliates) may have realized from its relationship with the fund, including research received under “soft dollar” agreements. The Board noted that the use of soft dollars as a means of paying for third-party, non-broker research had been eliminated. The Board reviewed information on the estimated costs incurred and profits realized by the Manager and its affiliates from advising T. Rowe Price mutual funds, as well as estimates of the gross profits realized from managing the fund in particular. The Board concluded that the Manager’s profits were reasonable in light of the services provided to the fund. The Board also considered the extent to which economies of scale were being realized by the Manager and whether the fund or other funds benefit from any such economies of scale under the fee levels set forth in the Co ntract. The Board noted that, under the Contract, the fund pays the Manager a single fee based on the fund’s assets and that the Manager, in turn, pays all expenses of the fund, with certain exceptions. The Board concluded that, based on the profitability data it reviewed and consistent with this single-fee structure, the Contract provided for a reasonable sharing of any benefits from economies of scale with the fund.

Fees
The Board reviewed the fund’s single-fee structure and compared it with fees and expenses of other comparable funds based on information and data supplied by Lipper. The information provided to the Board showed that the fund’s management fee and expense ratio were generally below the median of comparable funds. (For these purposes, the Board assumed the management fee was equal to the single fee less the fund’s operating expenses.) The Board also reviewed the fee schedules for comparable privately managed accounts of the Manager and its affiliates. Management informed the Board that the Manager’s responsibilities for privately managed accounts are more limited than its responsibilities for the fund and other T. Rowe Price mutual funds that it or its affiliates advise. On the basis of the information provided, the Board concluded that the fees paid by the fund under the Contract were reasonable.

Approval of the Contract
As noted, the Board approved the continuation of the Contract. No single factor was considered in isolation or to be determinative to the decision. Rather, the Board concluded, in light of a weighting and balancing of all factors considered, that it was in the best interests of the fund to approve the continuation of the Contract, including the fees to be charged for services thereunder.

ANNUAL MEETING RESULTS

The T. Rowe Price Summit Municipal Income Fund held an annual meeting on April 19, 2006, to elect directors to serve on the board of the fund.

The results of the voting were as follows (by number of shares):

To elect the directors listed below:

Jeremiah E. Casey		Theo C. Rodgers
Affirmative:	200,179,289.778	Affirmative:	200,184,346.475
Withhold:	3,252,393.782	Withhold:	3,247,337.085
Total:	203,431,683.560	Total:	203,431,683.560
Anthony W. Deering		John G. Schreiber
Affirmative:	200,010,134.119	Affirmative:	200,195,042.188
Withhold:	3,421,549.441	Withhold:	3,236,641.372
Total:	203,431,683.560	Total:	203,431,683.560
Donald W. Dick, Jr.		Edward C. Bernard
Affirmative:	200,177,121.615	Affirmative:	200,046,182.461
Withhold:	3,254,561.945	Withhold:	3,385,501.099
Total:	203,431,683.560	Total:	203,431,683.560
David K. Fagin		Mary J. Miller
Affirmative:	200,188,757.044	Affirmative:	200,032,793.859
Withhold:	3,242,926.516	Withhold:	3,398,889.701
Total:	203,431,683.560	Total:	203,431,683.560
Karen N. Horn
Affirmative:	200,125,748.792
Withhold:	3,305,934.768
Total:	203,431,683.560

Item 2. Code of Ethics.

A code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, applicable to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions is filed as an exhibit to the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR. No substantive amendments were approved or waivers were granted to this code of ethics during the registrant’s most recent fiscal half-year.

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.

Disclosure required in registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Disclosure required in registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

Not applicable.

Item 6. Schedule of Investments.

Not applicable. The complete schedule of investments is included in Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable.

Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable.

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers.

Not applicable.

Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

Not applicable.

Item 11. Controls and Procedures.

(a) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have evaluated the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days of this filing and have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of that date, in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the registrant in this Form N-CSR was recorded, processed, summarized, and reported timely.

(b) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are aware of no change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12. Exhibits.

(a)(1) The registrant’s code of ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed with the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.

    (2) Separate certifications by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, are attached.

    (3) Written solicitation to repurchase securities issued by closed-end companies: not applicable.

(b) A certification by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, is attached.

SIGNATURES
	Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
T. Rowe Price Summit Municipal Funds, Inc.
By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
	Edward C. Bernard
	Principal Executive Officer
Date	June 15, 2006
	Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of
the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
	Edward C. Bernard
	Principal Executive Officer
Date	June 15, 2006
By	/s/ Joseph A. Carrier
	Joseph A. Carrier
	Principal Financial Officer
Date	June 15, 2006

EX-99.CERT

Item 12(a)(2).

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Edward C. Bernard, certify that:
1.	I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of T. Rowe Price Summit Municipal Income Fund;
2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
	to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
	which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
	report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in
	net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash
	flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
	disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act
	of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the
	Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:
	(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
		procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
		the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
		entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
	(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
		financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
		regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
		external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
	(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
		this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
		a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and
	(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that
		occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially
		affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
		reporting; and
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant's auditors and the
	audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
	functions):
	(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
		over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
		record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and
	(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
		significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:	June 15, 2006	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Joseph A. Carrier, certify that:
1.	I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of T. Rowe Price Summit Municipal Income Fund;
2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
	to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
	which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
	report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in
	net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash
	flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
	disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act
	of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the
	Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:
	(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
		procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
		the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
		entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
	(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
		financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
		regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
		external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
	(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
		this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
		a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and
	(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that
		occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially
		affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
		reporting; and
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant's auditors and the
	audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
	functions):
	(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
		over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
		record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and
	(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
		significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:	June 15, 2006	/s/ Joseph A. Carrier
		Joseph A. Carrier
		Principal Financial Officer

EX-99.906 CERT

Item 12(b).
CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
Name of Issuer: T. Rowe Price Summit Municipal Income Fund
In connection with the Report on Form N-CSR for the above named issuer, the undersigned hereby
certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:
1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
	Exchange Act of 1934;
2.	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
	condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
Date: June 15, 2006		/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer
Date:  June 15, 2006		/s/ Joseph A. Carrier
		Joseph A. Carrier
		Principal Financial Officer