SB 956 changes how the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) handles unpaid video tolls. Under current practice, MDTA can refer delinquent video-toll accounts to the State’s Central Collection Unit (CCU) and can recall accounts in specific circumstances; this bill lets MDTA reduce or cancel portions of a debt without first recalling the account from the CCU, and it requires MDTA to tell the CCU the new debt amount.
Practically, the bill shifts two operational levers: it removes a procedural friction that forced MDTA to pull accounts back from centralized collections to issue adjustments, and it requires the CCU to recalculate the fee it charges for collection services based on the lowered balance. That interaction alters revenue flows and will require new operational rules and data exchanges between MDTA and the CCU.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits MDTA to reduce or waive any part of a video-toll balance even after the account has been sent to the Central Collection Unit, without recalling the account. When MDTA reduces a debt, it must notify the CCU of the revised balance, and the CCU must lower its statutory collection fee proportionally under §3–304(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article.
Who It Affects
Directly affects MDTA toll operations and its customer-service workflow, the Central Collection Unit and its fee receipts, and motorists with unpaid video-toll accounts. It also affects accounting and revenue reporting in agencies that receive CCU fees and any contractors that perform downstream collection work.
Why It Matters
Removing the recall requirement lets MDTA resolve billing errors or apply discretionary relief faster without administrative back-and-forth, but it also reduces the base on which collection fees are calculated and shifts where revenue shortfalls or adjustments must be managed. Agencies and compliance teams will need clear policies and data protocols to implement the change cleanly.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 956 rewrites the limited set of collection rules that govern unpaid video tolls on Maryland’s toll facilities. The bill leaves intact existing definitions and the Authority’s existing options to refer delinquent accounts to the Central Collection Unit and to recall accounts under specified conditions (for example, high balances or mitigating factors).
Its practical change is to decouple the act of reducing a customer’s assessed video toll or civil penalty from the procedural step of recalling the account out of centralized collections.
Under the new approach, MDTA can adjust a delinquent balance while an account remains at the CCU. To make that operational, the bill requires MDTA to notify the CCU of the revised debt amount; the CCU in turn must recalculate the fee it applies under the statutory fee provision and reduce that fee to reflect the lower principal.
The bill does not specify notification formats, timing deadlines, or dispute-resolution procedures, so agencies will need to define those through internal policy or regulation.The recall criteria that let MDTA pull accounts back from the CCU remain in place, so recall continues to be available where the Authority wants full control of an account (for example, complex disputes or consolidated adjustments). What changes is the preferred administrative path: MDTA can now apply targeted waivers and immediately update the centralized balance, which should reduce customer service churn and the administrative cost of moving accounts between systems.Implementation will require updates to interfaces and accounting processes.
CCU will have to adjust how it calculates and posts collection fees when balances change post-referral, and MDTA will need clear standards to decide when to waive amounts and how to document those decisions to preserve auditability and prevent inconsistent treatment across similarly situated motorists.
The Five Things You Need to Know
MDTA can reduce or waive any part of a video-toll balance without recalling a delinquent account from the Central Collection Unit.
When MDTA reduces a debt, it must notify the Central Collection Unit of the revised balance; the bill does not prescribe a notification format or deadline.
The Central Collection Unit must lower the fee it assesses under §3–304(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article based on the revised debt amount.
Existing recall triggers remain: MDTA may still recall accounts that exceed $300, involve tolls assessed within a 30‑day window, or present mitigating factors as the Authority determines.
The bill takes effect October 1, 2026, requiring both MDTA and CCU to update procedures and systems before that date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions retained
The bill reproduces, without change, key definitional subsections for the video-toll statute, preserving terms like “Authority” and “video toll.” That keeps the statutory vocabulary stable so downstream changes in collection practice rest on the same baseline definitions already used by MDTA operations and compliance teams.
Referral to Central Collection Unit remains
Subsection (h)(1) continues to authorize MDTA to send delinquent video-toll accounts to the Central Collection Unit. The practical implication is that the centralized collection pathway remains the default mechanism for handling unpaid video tolls; SWIFT and other accounting flows tied to referrals are unchanged by the bill.
Recall criteria preserved
The bill keeps the Authority’s existing recall authority and criteria (accounts over $300, video tolls assessed within a 30‑day period, or mitigating factors). Recall still gives MDTA the option to take an account out of centralized collections when it needs end‑to‑end control — for example, to consolidate multiple transactions or litigate a disputed charge.
Waiver without recall and mandatory CCU fee adjustment
This is the operative change: MDTA may waive any portion of the assessed video toll or civil penalty while an account remains in the CCU. After making a waiver, MDTA must inform the CCU of the new balance; the CCU must then reduce the fee it charges under §3–304(a) in proportion to that revised debt. The section leaves open technical details — timing, formats, evidence of waiver authority — which agencies must supply in policy and system updates.
Effective date
The act becomes effective October 1, 2026. That creates a concrete implementation window for MDTA, the CCU, and their vendors to build the necessary notification, accounting, and audit trails before the change takes effect.
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
- Motorists with disputed or modest unpaid video tolls — they can get faster relief because MDTA can adjust balances without the overhead of recalling accounts from the CCU.
- MDTA operations and customer‑service teams — fewer recalls and interagency handoffs should reduce administrative workload and shorten time-to-resolution for routine adjustments.
- Customers eligible for discretionary relief (for example, hardship cases or billing errors) — the Authority can apply targeted waivers more quickly and keep accounts out of aggressive collection steps.
- Court and administrative dockets — by enabling on‑paper adjustments while accounts remain centralized, fewer routine disputes may escalate to formal hearings, freeing adjudicative resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- State treasury and collection-fee recipients — because CCU’s statutory fee is a percentage of the debt, waivers that lower outstanding balances reduce fee receipts tied to collections.
- MDTA’s revenue management — quicker waivers may reduce gross toll recovery and require MDTA to reconcile higher frequencies of small adjustments in budgeting and forecasting.
- Central Collection Unit operational workload — CCU must implement logic to accept post-referral balance changes and recompute fees, update deposit reports, and reconcile collections, creating an implementation burden.
- Collection contractors and downstream vendors — reduced principal balances and lower CCU fees may reduce contractor fees that are tied to recoveries, potentially changing contract economics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute balances two legitimate goals — quicker, flexible relief for toll customers and efficient centralized recovery of public debts — but prioritizes administrative flexibility at the expense of collection revenue certainty. In short: it makes it easier to adjust balances for fairness and speed, while creating open questions about who ultimately absorbs reduced fees and how to prevent inconsistent or unauthorized waivers.
The bill delegates significant discretion to MDTA without prescribing operational controls. It does not define when waivers are appropriate, how they must be documented, or how MDTA should communicate adjustments to debtors.
That omission creates a risk of inconsistent treatment across accounts, challenges for auditability, and potential legal exposure if waiver decisions are not supported by clear policies.
The fee-adjustment mechanism solves a fairness problem (the CCU should not keep a fee calculated on an amount no longer owed), but it shifts the timing and locus of lost revenue. The statute requires the CCU to reduce its fee after notification, but it does not allocate responsibility for reconciling fees already disbursed or for handling accounts where adjustments occur during litigation or other pending enforcement actions.
Implementing the change will require updated interfaces, transaction logging, and an agreed standard for when an MDTA waiver becomes effective relative to CCU posting cycles.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.