This bill amends Maryland Transportation Code §21-1414(h) to let the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) waive any portion of a video toll or associated civil penalty on a delinquent account without first recalling the account from the State’s Central Collection Unit (CCU). When MDTA reduces a debt, it must notify the CCU of the revised amount, and the CCU must recompute and lower the fee it charges under §3-304(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article to reflect the reduced debt.
Why it matters: the change gives MDTA a surgical tool to resolve small-balance, disputed, or mitigating cases quickly without pulling accounts out of centralized collections. That reduces administrative friction but also shifts how collection fees and potential revenue losses are handled between MDTA, the CCU, and ultimately taxpayers and collection vendors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes MDTA to waive part or all of a video toll or civil penalty on a delinquent account while the account remains in CCU. After a waiver, MDTA must tell CCU the revised debt amount, and CCU must reduce the fee it assesses under §3-304(a) based on that revised balance.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Maryland Transportation Authority’s toll operations, the State’s Central Collection Unit and its fee revenue, and motorists with delinquent video-toll accounts (including commercial fleet operators). Vendors and agencies that depend on predictable CCU fees or commission revenues will also be affected.
Why It Matters
It changes the operational relationship between an agency that assesses debts (MDTA) and the centralized collector (CCU), creating a mechanism to resolve accounts administratively without breaking centralized collection workflows — while forcing CCU fee adjustments tied to post-referral waivers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes a single but consequential piece of Maryland toll-collection law. Under current law MDTA may refer unpaid video tolls and penalties to the Central Collection Unit and may recall accounts under specific triggers.
This bill leaves those referral and recall powers intact but adds an independent power: MDTA can now waive any portion of the toll or penalty on a delinquent account without recalling it from the CCU.
When MDTA exercises that waiver power it must notify the CCU of the new, lower debt amount. The bill then requires the CCU to reduce the fee it charges for collection under §3-304(a) of State Finance and Procurement based on that revised debt.
In short, the agency that can forgive or reduce a debt must communicate the outcome, and the centralized collector must recalculate its fee so its charge aligns with the smaller principal balance.The statute preserves the existing recall criteria: MDTA may still recall an account from CCU when the delinquent balance exceeds $300, when the tolls were assessed within a 30‑day period, or when MDTA finds mitigating factors. The new waiver authority is additive — a tool to resolve accounts administratively that MDTA previously might have had to recall to adjust.
The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.Operationally this creates a short path to clear low-dollar or contested video-toll accounts while keeping them in centralized collections. It also creates a legally required downward adjustment of CCU fees tied directly to MDTA’s post-referral actions, which will affect CCU fee revenue and how MDTA accounts for net recoveries.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds explicit authority for MDTA to waive any portion of a video toll or civil penalty on a delinquent account without recalling the account from the Central Collection Unit.
After any waiver, MDTA must notify the Central Collection Unit of the revised debt amount.
The Central Collection Unit must reduce the fee it assesses under §3-304(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article based on the revised debt amount following a waiver.
Existing statutory recall triggers remain unchanged: MDTA may recall an account when the delinquent balance exceeds $300, when tolls were assessed within a 30‑day period, or when mitigating factors exist.
The bill’s effective date is October 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions retained
The bill republishes three definitions from subsection (a) without change, preserving the statutory meanings referenced elsewhere in §21-1414. That confirms there is no definitional change to key terms such as “Authority” (MDTA) or “video toll,” so the new waiver power operates against the same universe of transactions already governed by the statute.
Referral and recall authority preserved
Subsection (h)(1) continues to permit MDTA to refer delinquent video-toll accounts to the Central Collection Unit. Subsection (h)(2) maintains the three statutory conditions under which MDTA may recall an account: balances over $300, assessment within a 30‑day period, or the presence of mitigating factors. The bill does not change these thresholds or the recall process, so agencies and collectors should expect existing referral workflows to remain operational.
New waiver rule and CCU fee adjustment
The core amendment is to create an in-place waiver power: MDTA may waive any portion of the video toll or associated civil penalty on a delinquent account without recalling the account from CCU. When MDTA does so, it must notify CCU of the revised debt amount, and CCU is required to reduce the collection fee it would otherwise assess under §3‑304(a) to reflect the lower principal. That provision changes the billing and fee reconciliation step between the creditor (MDTA) and the centralized collector (CCU), and it creates a mandatory information flow from MDTA to CCU following a waiver.
When the amendment takes effect
The bill specifies an effective date of October 1, 2026. That gives MDTA and CCU a discrete lead time to update policies, IT interfaces, and accounting treatments to implement the new waiver-notify-fee-adjust process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA): Gains administrative flexibility to clear small-balance, disputed, or mitigation‑worthy video‑toll accounts without recalling accounts from CCU, reducing back-and-forth and case management costs.
- Motorists with disputed or low-dollar video-toll debts: Can receive faster relief or adjusted balances because MDTA can waive amounts directly while the account remains in centralized collection.
- State administrative operations (MDTA case managers and CCU clerks): Potentially lower recall workload and fewer account transfers, simplifying operational handoffs and reducing processing delays.
- Commercial fleet operators and business toll managers: May see faster resolution of mass or billing disputes because MDTA can adjust account balances administratively rather than triggering formal recall and longer collection timelines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Central Collection Unit (CCU): Faces reduced fee revenue because the statute requires lowering the §3‑304(a) fee based on post-referral waivers; the change may also require IT and accounting work to implement recalculation rules.
- State treasury / taxpayers: If MDTA uses waivers more frequently, net recoveries could decline and affect statewide revenues or budgeting assumptions tied to toll collections.
- Private collection vendors and contractors: May see reduced commissions or fewer referred accounts if MDTA resolves more accounts administratively, altering expected revenue streams.
- MDTA’s finance and audit functions: Must absorb the implementation cost of new reconciliation procedures and ensure internal controls around waiver decisions to prevent abuse or revenue leakage.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades centralized collection stability and predictable fee revenue for agency-level flexibility to resolve accounts more quickly and fairly; the central dilemma is whether administrative discretion (and the attendant risk of revenue erosion and moral hazard) is worth the reduced recall workload and faster resolutions for disputed or low-dollar accounts.
The bill solves a narrow operational friction — needing to recall accounts to make post-referral adjustments — but it leaves open several implementation questions that will determine whether the change improves efficiency or merely shifts cost. The statute requires CCU fee reduction “based on the amount of the revised debt,” but it does not specify the method or timing for recalculating the fee, how to handle partial recoveries already paid to CCU, or whether CCU may seek reimbursement for administrative costs it incurred prior to notification.
Those gaps will require procedural rules or interagency agreements.
There is also a behavioral risk. If MDTA applies waivers more liberally, some motorists may be less incentivized to resolve tolls promptly, increasing reliance on discretionary forgiveness.
That creates potential moral hazard and could depress long‑term collections. Conversely, leaving the waiver power off the table forces recalls that impose real administrative costs.
Finally, the amendment creates a dependency on timely and accurate data exchange between MDTA and CCU; without adequate IT and audit controls the change could produce reconciliation mismatches, disputes over fee amounts, and pressure on CCU’s budget and vendor payments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.