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

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB5670

HB5670 creates Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 259 for two tracts totaling 342.736 acres near Peach Creek and Faulkner Road.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of the Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 259; 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): Holt. 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.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB5670 creates Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 259 for two tracts totaling 342.736 acres near Peach Creek and Faulkner Road. The statute’s detailed boundaries, not the county name, determine which properties are included.

The district receives general municipal-utility-district powers and authority to finance, build and maintain roads and related drainage. Voters must confirm creation and elect five permanent directors. Required municipal consent must precede that election. The act names Jerry Everhard, Darby Oldham Kent, Troy A. Brown, Brett West and Caleb Davis as temporary directors until permanent directors are elected or September 1, 2029, whichever occurs first. It provides successor appointments if needed. Permanent directors serve staggered four-year terms. A district created by division under the cited general law inherits this chapter’s powers and duties.

Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval. Tax-backed road bonds require approval by two-thirds of participating voters, and their principal at issuance cannot exceed one-fourth of assessed real-property value. Specified revenue- or contract-payment-backed obligations do not require a separate bond election; contract taxes require voter approval of the underlying contract. Operating-tax rates cannot exceed the approved rate, while the continuing tax for outstanding tax-backed bonds has no rate or amount limit specified in this act. Roads must meet applicable local standards, with state approval for state-maintained roads.

The act became law without the governor’s signature June 20, 2025, effective September 1, 2025. Despite the caption’s reference to eminent domain, the district may not exercise that power: House passage was 81–47, below the two-thirds threshold, activating the act’s prohibition. The Senate vote was 28–3. Sources: enrolled law, boundaries and certified votes and official history.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill left the territory description blank and would have had the environmental commission appoint initial directors from a qualifying landowner petition. The House substitute supplied the 342.386-acre and 0.350-acre descriptions and named the initial board. It also expressly added road-project authority and standards, the provision for districts created by division, clarified municipal consent as required by applicable law, and completed chapter numbering and references. The introduced bill already contained road-related public-purpose and bond provisions; the substitute supplied the express operational authority.

The House substitute’s operative text and boundaries match the House-passed version, Senate committee version and enrolled law. The Senate committee reported without amendments. The amendment index lists no floor amendments. The fixed September 1 effective date and conditional eminent-domain prohibition were retained.

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 benefit from district-financed infrastructure. District taxpayers and customers could bear taxes, fees, assessments and debt-service costs. This law does not itself set a tax rate, issue bonds, approve a particular project or establish that voters have confirmed the district.

The introduced fiscal note, House substitute note and latest note anticipate no significant state impact and no impact on other local governments. They cannot determine the district’s own costs because future bonds, assessments, fees and taxes are unknown. The introduced note’s mention of possible eminent-domain costs is not evidence that the enacted district can use eminent domain.

Official sources

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