← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB5674
HB5674 creates River Ranch Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Williamson County.
Official caption: Relating to the creation of the River Ranch Municipal Utility District No. 1; granting a limited power of eminent domain; providing authority to issue bonds; providing authority to impose assessments, fees, and taxes.
Official report lists House author(s): Wilson. 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.
- HB5674 creates River Ranch Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Williamson County.
- The district receives municipal-utility-district powers and authority to finance, build and maintain roads and related drainage.
- Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval.
- The act became law without the governor's signature on June 20, 2025, effective September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
HB5674 creates River Ranch Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Williamson County. Its territory is defined by 20 listed tracts around the South San Gabriel River, State Highway 29, Ranch Road 1869 and Durham Park. The detailed descriptions—not the district’s name—determine which land is included; several tracts refer to recorded plats, and some descriptions contain exceptions or boundary qualifications.
The district receives municipal-utility-district powers and authority to finance, build and maintain roads and related drainage. Voters must confirm creation and elect five permanent directors. Municipal consent required by applicable law must precede that election. Owners representing a majority of assessed real-property value may petition the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to appoint five named temporary directors. They serve until permanent directors are elected or four years after the act’s effective date; the law provides for successor appointments if needed. Permanent directors serve staggered four-year terms. Districts created by division under the cited general law inherit these powers and duties.
Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval. Tax-backed road bonds require approval from 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 need a separate bond election; contract taxes require voter approval of the underlying contract. Operating-tax rates cannot exceed the approved rate. Taxes supporting outstanding tax-backed bonds have no rate or amount limit specified in this act. Road projects must meet applicable local standards, with state approval when the state will maintain the road.
The act became law without the governor’s signature on June 20, 2025, effective September 1, 2025. Although the caption refers to eminent domain, the district may not exercise it: the House’s 81–47 vote fell below the two-thirds threshold, activating the act’s prohibition. The Senate vote was 27–4. Sources: enrolled law and certified votes and official history.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill, House committee report, House-passed text, Senate committee report and enrolled act contain the same operative provisions and boundary descriptions. Differences are printing matter and certifications, not policy amendments. Both committees reported without amendments; the amendment index lists none. The text index identifies all five versions.
The confirmation election, financing conditions and vote-dependent eminent-domain restriction were present from introduction. This briefing does not treat the caption’s proposed power as the law that actually took effect.
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 residents could benefit from district-financed infrastructure. District taxpayers and customers could bear taxes, fees, assessments and debt-service costs. The act does not itself set a tax rate, issue a bond, establish that a confirmation election has occurred or promise any particular project. Boundary descriptions are not a determination of ownership or a new survey resolving the discrepancies some descriptions note.
The April 29 introduced fiscal note and May 21 engrossed fiscal note anticipate no significant state fiscal effect, assuming costs can be absorbed with existing resources, and no effect on other local governments. They cannot determine district costs because future financing, charges and actions are unknown. Their discussion of possible eminent-domain costs does not override the enacted prohibition. Neither note gives a dollar estimate or a household tax calculation.
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.
