← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB5658
HB5658 creates Craver Ranch Municipal Management District No. 1 over a legally described 2,801.468-acre area in Denton County.
Official caption: Relating to the creation of the Craver Ranch Municipal Management District No. 1; providing authority to issue bonds; providing authority to impose assessments and fees; granting a limited power of eminent domain.
Official report lists House author(s): Patterson. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
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.
- HB5658 creates Craver Ranch Municipal Management District No. 1 over a legally described 2,801.468-acre area in Denton County.
- Before exercising any district powers, a development agreement must be executed between the primary landowner and the city, defined in the act as the City of Denton.
- The district cannot impose a property-value tax, but may impose assessments and fees and borrow money.
- The first bond issuance requires applicable municipal consent.
- The district has no eminent-domain power.
What does it do?
HB5658 creates Craver Ranch Municipal Management District No. 1 over a legally described 2,801.468-acre area in Denton County. It authorizes infrastructure and services such as water, wastewater, drainage, roads, recreation and parking, along with economic-development programs, loans and grants. The district supplements, rather than replaces, existing city services.
Before exercising any district powers, a development agreement must be executed between the primary landowner and the city, defined in the act as the City of Denton. The survey description itself refers to Sanger; the operative definition still names Denton. If the agreement has not been executed after September 1, 2030, a written city request triggers dissolution under the act’s procedures. A five-member elected board has staggered four-year terms; the act names the initial directors and provides for successors if elections have not occurred before their terms expire.
The district cannot impose a property-value tax, but may impose assessments and fees and borrow money. Assessment-financed improvements or services require a petition signed by owners of a majority of the assessed value of the real property subject to assessment. Assessments, penalties, interest, collection expenses and reasonable legal fees become personal obligations and enforceable property liens, subordinate to specified local property-tax liens. The ordinary statutory exemption for certain small residential properties does not apply here; homeowners should not equate “no property tax” with “no district charges.”
The first bond issuance requires applicable municipal consent. Certain revenue- or contract-backed bonds can be issued without an election. Division into new districts is allowed only without outstanding bonded debt and cannot initially reach outside the act’s described territory. Dissolution provisions protect outstanding debts, contractual payments and continued handling of public facilities.
The district has no eminent-domain power. The final House concurrence vote was 85–52, short of the two-thirds threshold needed for the alternative grant of that power, despite the earlier House vote of 103–45 and Senate vote of 28–3. The bill became law without the governor’s signature June 20, 2025, and took effect September 1. Sources: enrolled law and votes, history and effective-date remarks, and residential exemption displaced by the act.
What changed along the way?
The introduced, House committee and House-passed operative texts match. They set initial director terms ending June 1, 2027 or June 1, 2029. The Senate substitute instead tied initial terms to the earlier of permanent elections or the fourth anniversary of the act’s effective date, and supplied a successor-appointment process. It also made the proposed eminent-domain grant subject to Water Code 54.209’s limits on certain acquisitions outside district boundaries.
The House concurred in that substitute; its operative text matches the final law, including the unchanged territorial description. The amendment index lists no separate floor amendments. Crucially, the conditional eminent-domain grant never became operative because of the final House vote; the enacted alternative is a complete prohibition, not merely the Senate substitute’s narrower restrictions.
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, developers, businesses and residents could benefit from coordinated infrastructure and services. Assessed property owners can bear substantial charges and lien-enforcement risk, including owners of residential property ordinarily protected by the displaced exemption. The act authorizes financing and development tools; it does not show that a development agreement, assessment, project or bond issue has actually been approved.
All five indexed fiscal notes were reviewed. The final fiscal note anticipates no significant state impact and no impact on other local governments but cannot determine the district’s fiscal impact. Its generic references to possible taxes and eminent domain do not override the act’s property-tax ban or the no-eminent-domain outcome. No specific household charge, project cost or economic gain is established.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.