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

HB5677

HB5677 creates Pura Vida Municipal Management District No. 1 for a described 211.348-acre area in Travis County near U.S. 183 and FM 1327.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of the Pura Vida Municipal Management District No. 1; providing authority to issue bonds; providing authority to impose assessments, fees, and taxes; granting a limited power of eminent domain.

Became law without signatureSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Cole. 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?

HB5677 creates Pura Vida Municipal Management District No. 1 for a described 211.348-acre area in Travis County near U.S. 183 and FM 1327. It can finance and provide public improvements and services, including water, wastewater, drainage, roads, recreation and parking, and support economic development through loans, grants, personnel and services. It can contract for additional law enforcement and create a nonprofit corporation to help carry out its work. These services are to supplement—not replace—the City of Mustang Ridge’s existing services. The law also makes the area eligible for tax-increment or tax-abatement zones; eligibility does not itself create either zone.

The district has five elected directors with staggered four-year terms. Owners of a majority of assessed real-property value can petition the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to appoint temporary directors, with successor appointments if necessary. They must arrange the permanent-director election. Director compensation is capped at $150 per board meeting and $7,200 per year, plus reimbursement of necessary, reasonable expenses.

Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval. The operating-tax rate cannot exceed the approved rate, while the continuing tax for outstanding tax-backed bonds has no rate or amount limit specified in this act. Specified revenue- or contract-payment-backed bonds can be issued without a separate bond election. Required municipal consent applies to the first property-tax-backed bond issuance. Assessment-financed services or improvements require a petition from owners of a majority of assessed property value subject to assessment. Assessments can create a lien and personal liability for property owners. The act removes the general statutory ceiling on outstanding recreational-facility debt; that is not a waiver of every financing requirement.

The district can adopt a sales and use tax with voter approval. Under the act’s main method, its rate is two percent or the lower rate that keeps combined local sales taxes at or below two percent. Alternatively, it can use the development-district method in Local Government Code Chapter 383, which allows voter-approved rates of one-quarter, three-eighths or one-half percent, also subject to the combined-local-tax ceiling. The alternative method allows the board to reduce or abolish the tax and discontinues it if no revenue is collected before the first anniversary. Neither route automatically imposes a tax on enactment.

The district may add or exclude land under the cited general laws. It may divide only when it has no outstanding bonded debt and is not imposing property taxes; newly divided districts cannot initially extend beyond the act’s territory and must obtain applicable voter financing approvals. Dissolution may be initiated by the board or required by a qualifying two-thirds property-owner petition, but debts, contractual payments and responsibility for public facilities must first be addressed.

The bill became law without the governor’s signature June 20, 2025, effective September 1, 2025. The district has no eminent-domain power: the House’s 89–48 concurrence vote was below the required two-thirds threshold, so the prohibition—not the conditional grant—took effect. The initial House vote was 82–49; the Senate vote was 27–4. Sources: enrolled act and certified votes and official history and effective-date remarks.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill included a hotel occupancy tax of up to seven percent and special hotel/convention-center financing provisions. The House substitute narrowed the permitted use of hotel-tax proceeds by deleting the blanket authorization to spend them for any district purpose as the board considered appropriate. The House-passed text retained that substitute.

The Senate substitute then removed the hotel occupancy tax and hotel/convention-center subchapters entirely, along with a separate assessment-bond procedure tied to facilities conveyed to or operated by a municipality or retail utility provider. It added a Water Code limitation to the proposed eminent-domain authority, but the final vote activated the separate prohibition. General assessment and borrowing powers remain; the deleted special procedure should not be described as a repeal of all assessment-backed financing.

The Senate substitute matches the enrolled operative text. The amendment index lists no floor amendments: the changes came through committee substitutes. The April 30 committee minutes record adoption of the House substitute; the May 10 minutes record reconsidering the reporting vote, not adoption of a second text. All versions are linked in the official text index.

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, businesses, residents and visitors could benefit from publicly financed improvements and additional services. Property owners may bear property taxes, assessment liens and debt-related costs, while customers may pay a district sales tax if approved. Public loans or grants could support economic development, but the act does not guarantee a project, a particular private benefit or a tax saving. Existing city service obligations are preserved. The hotel-tax and special hotel/convention-center proposals were removed, not enacted.

The latest May 29 fiscal note, covering the bill as passed by the second house, anticipates no significant state fiscal effect, assuming costs can be absorbed with existing resources. It cannot determine the district’s financial effect because future bonds, assessments, fees and taxes are unknown, and expects no fiscal effect on other local governments. Earlier introduced, House-substitute, engrossed and Senate-substitute notes were also reviewed; none supplies a household cost estimate. The introduced note’s reference to possible eminent-domain costs does not establish a power the final law prohibits.

For the debt-ceiling and alternative-sales-tax details, see Water Code 49.4645 and Local Government Code Chapter 383, Subchapter F. This review used their official September 1, 2025 text, not assumptions from other districts.

Official sources

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