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

HB5661

HB5661 creates Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 286 with general municipal-utility-district powers and authority for roads and related drainage.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of the Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 286; granting a limited power of eminent domain; providing authority to issue bonds; providing authority to impose assessments, fees, and taxes.

Became law without signatureSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Gates. 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.

HB5661 creates Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 286 with general municipal-utility-district powers and authority for roads and related drainage.
Before temporary directors can hold the confirmation/director election or a bond-authorization election, the City of Rosenberg must consent to district creation and land inclusion.
The district may issue obligations backed by property taxes, impact fees, revenues, contract payments, grants or other district money.
The bill became law without the governor's signature June 20, 2025, effective immediately.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB5661 creates Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 286 with general municipal-utility-district powers and authority for roads and related drainage. Its final initial territory consists of two described tracts of 97.5629 and 79.5635 acres—about 177.13 acres total—in the H&TC Railroad Company Survey, with boundary references to Blase Road, Zunker Road and Twin Lane. The detailed legal descriptions govern which property is included.

Before temporary directors can hold the confirmation/director election or a bond-authorization election, the City of Rosenberg must consent to district creation and land inclusion. The district, city and owners representing a majority of assessed real-property value must also execute a mutually accepted development agreement. The act names Mark Arce, Houyshar Moarefi, Neil Aussenberg, Russell Chun and Kelsey Olsen as temporary directors. Permanent directors are elected to staggered four-year terms; successor temporary appointments are provided if needed.

The district may issue obligations backed by property taxes, impact fees, revenues, contract payments, grants or other district money. General Water Code rules require voter authorization for tax-backed bonds, apart from the stated refunding-bond exception, while revenue-only bonds can be authorized by the board. Outstanding tax-backed bonds require a continuing property tax without a rate or amount limit specified by this act. Road projects must meet applicable city/county requirements and receive state approval if the state will operate and maintain them. The district must maintain a website with the prescribed contact, budget, tax and audit information. New districts created by a lawful division inherit this chapter’s powers and duties.

The bill became law without the governor’s signature June 20, 2025, effective immediately. House 101–47 and Senate 27–4 votes met the two-thirds requirement, so the fallback ban on eminent domain did not take effect; applicable general-law limits remain. Sources: final law, history, general tax-bond election rule and website disclosures.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill described a different 73.4011-acre tract, provided for landowner-petitioned appointment of initial directors, and required a “development and operating agreement, including any limitations imposed by the city.” The House substitute replaced that territory with the two final tracts, named the initial directors, and changed the agreement wording to a mutually approved and accepted “development agreement.” City consent and the agreement requirement remained; the change is not a blanket exemption from city regulation.

The House substitute’s operative text and boundaries match the House-passed, Senate committee and enrolled versions. The Senate committee reported without amendments, and the amendment index lists no floor amendments. The earlier parcel should not be used as a map of the enacted district.

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 and future occupants could gain a local means of financing infrastructure. District taxpayers and customers could pay taxes, assessments, fees and debt-service costs. The required city agreement and website disclosures provide public oversight, but the act does not establish a specific project, tax rate, completed agreement or bond issue.

All three indexed fiscal notes were reviewed. The latest note anticipates no significant state impact and no impact on other local governments, but cannot determine the district’s fiscal impact because its future bonds, assessments, fees and taxes are unknown. It does not calculate household costs or promise that development will pay for itself.

Official sources

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