2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB2512

HB2512 changes how some land can leave a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, or ETJ—an unincorporated area outside the city limits where state law gives the city certain powers.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the release of certain areas from a municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction by petition or election.

Became law without signatureSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Geren. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

HB2512 changes how some land can leave a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, or ETJ—an unincorporated area outside the city limits where state law gives the city certain powers.
Three new eligibility exclusions apply only to the ETJ of a city meeting a specific geographic test: the city is in four or more counties, one of which has at least 2.1 million people and borders a county with at least 2.6 million.
Those new restrictions are not statewide bans on releasing every small lot or every development-agreement property.
For the election route generally, the resident requesting release must live in the area proposed for release.
The act also expressly adds releases under the petition and election subchapters as exceptions to the general rule requiring written city consent to reduce its ETJ.
The act took effect September 1, 2025.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB2512 changes how some land can leave a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, or ETJ—an unincorporated area outside the city limits where state law gives the city certain powers. Leaving the ETJ is not the same as deannexing land already inside a city. The act both adds limits for certain areas and adds protections for landowners who want to remain. Final law; ETJ definition and extent.

Three new eligibility exclusions apply only to the ETJ of a city meeting a specific geographic test: the city is in four or more counties, one of which has at least 2.1 million people and borders a county with at least 2.6 million. For that city’s ETJ, the petition-release and election-release procedures do not apply to:

An area subject to an active development agreement with the city under Local Government Code 212.172.
A platted or unplatted lot smaller than 12 acres, unless included with other land in the relevant release petition.
A single lot within a platted subdivision containing at least 25 lots.

Those new restrictions are not statewide bans on releasing every small lot or every development-agreement property. Existing exclusions, including specified military-base areas, industrial districts and strategic-partnership areas, remain. This explanation states the enacted geographic test rather than deciding whether an individual parcel qualifies. Final law, Sections 2–3; development-agreement authority.

For the election route generally, the resident requesting release must live in the area proposed for release. The city must notify residents and landowners of the petition within seven business days after receiving it. Before release under that election subchapter, each affected landowner must have an opportunity to keep their property in the ETJ. The act does not prescribe a detailed opt-out form or deadline. These changes are not limited by the four-county test above, and the new opt-out section is placed in the election subchapter, not the separate direct-petition subchapter. Final law, Sections 4–5.

The act also expressly adds releases under the petition and election subchapters as exceptions to the general rule requiring written city consent to reduce its ETJ. Existing signature thresholds remain distinct: the election-request route requires at least 5% of registered voters in the area, while a direct-release petition generally requires more than 50% of registered voters or a majority in value of landowners’ titles. Five percent requests an election; it does not itself win release. Final law, Sections 1 and 4; direct-petition requirements; election approval and release.

The act took effect September 1, 2025. Its transition clause applies the changes only to eligibility for release resulting from a petition filed or an election requested on or after that date. It does not direct cities to undo every earlier ETJ release. It became law without the governor’s signature. Final law, Sections 6–7; official history.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill was broader in different ways: it proposed expanding the general military-base exclusion from five to fifteen miles, excluding land covered by additional agreements and excluding areas within a city’s water-service certificate. The House substitute removed those expansions and instead proposed a development-agreement restriction tied to cities above 900,000 people, plus the small-lot and subdivision restrictions. It also added the prospective transition and fixed September 1 date. The final law does not adopt the introduced bill’s general fifteen-mile or water-service exclusions. Introduced bill; House substitute.

All four indexed floor amendments were checked against the final text:

House Amendment 1, adopted: changed the development-agreement restriction to an active agreement and replaced the city-population test with the four-county and adjoining-county population test. Amendment text.
Senate Amendment F1, adopted: placed all three new restrictions under that same geographic test. This matters because the earlier small-lot and subdivision restrictions were not limited that way. Amendment text.
Senate Amendment F2, withdrawn: proposed an additional exclusion for water-service territory of cities with populations at most 150,000 located wholly or partly in counties with populations at most 300,000. It did not become law. Withdrawn text.
Senate Amendment F3, adopted: added the express city-consent exception, requester-residency rule, seven-business-day notice and landowner opportunity to stay. Amendment text.

The House concurred in the Senate amendments on May 29, 2025. The enrolled act includes the adopted changes, not the withdrawn proposal. Amendment index and dispositions; all versions; final law.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Landowners who want to stay in an ETJ gain an express opportunity to do so under the election process, and affected residents and owners gain earlier notice. A city meeting the geographic test gains protection against certain releases involving development agreements, small lots and individual subdivision lots. Owners seeking to leave in those situations face added limits. Other owners should not assume those geographic restrictions apply to them merely because their lot is small. Final law.

The Legislative Budget Board’s May 28, 2025 second-house fiscal note, also posted with the final version, anticipates no state fiscal implication and no significant local-government fiscal implication. Earlier introduced, House-substitute and engrossed notes reached the same budget conclusion. The notes do not put a dollar value on landowners’ lost options, development-agreement effects or the cost of a particular notice or election. Final-posted fiscal note; introduced note; House-substitute note; engrossed note.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.