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

HB5686

HB5686 creates Montgomery County Management District No. 3 on a described 144.058-acre tract along Seven Coves Road.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of the Montgomery County Management District No. 3; 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): Metcalf. 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?

HB5686 creates Montgomery County Management District No. 3 on a described 144.058-acre tract along Seven Coves Road. It authorizes public improvements and services, including water, wastewater, drainage, roads, recreation and parking, as well as economic-development programs, loans and grants. County, Conroe and Willis services must be supplemented, not replaced. The district may contract for law enforcement, establish a supporting nonprofit corporation and add or exclude land under the cited general laws. It may not use eminent domain.

Five directors serve staggered four-year terms. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality appoints successors from people recommended by the board—not by a district-wide director election. Initial directors Michele Burke, Andrew Williams and Benjamin Mellado have terms ending June 1, 2027; Mehmet Okumus and Joey Sergio Soto have terms ending June 1, 2029.

Property taxes require voter approval. Operating taxes cannot exceed the approved rate. Voter-approved property-tax-backed bonds require continuing debt-service taxes without a rate or amount limit specified in this act. The first such bond issue also requires applicable municipal consent to district creation and land inclusion. Specified revenue- or contract-payment-backed bonds do not require a separate election; contract payments remain subject to the cited Water Code requirements. The act exempts the district from Water Code 49.4645’s outstanding-debt limitation. Assessment-financed improvements or services require a petition from owners holding a majority of assessed real-property value subject to assessment. Assessments carry personal liability and enforceable property liens.

A sales and use tax requires voter approval, in increments of one-eighth of one percent. Subsequent board changes must stay within both the voter-approved maximum and the applicable combined local-rate limit. Revenue may support any district purpose and secure debt. A tax cannot be cut or abolished if that would impair repayment of secured obligations; after abolition or a zero rate, a new election is needed to impose it again. Newly included territory is subject to an existing district sales tax without another election, as provided by the cited Tax Code.

The district may divide only if it has never issued bonds and is not imposing property taxes. New districts must hold confirmation elections and any required tax or tax-backed bond elections. Separately taxed areas for specially benefiting improvements also require elections within those areas. Dissolution may follow a board vote or a qualifying two-thirds property-owner petition, but outstanding debts, contract payments and responsibility for public facilities must be resolved first.

The act became law without the governor’s signature on June 20, 2025, effective immediately that day. Certified passage votes were 106–36, with two present but not voting, in the House and 26–5 in the Senate. Sources: enrolled act and certified votes and official history.

What changed along the way?

The introduced text, House committee report, House-passed text, Senate committee report and enrolled act have identical operative provisions and boundary descriptions. Differences are printing and certification material. Both committees reported without amendments, and the amendment index lists none. The text index identifies all five versions.

The appointed-board structure, sales-tax powers, election conditions and unconditional eminent-domain prohibition were present from introduction; none was a later floor amendment.

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 district-funded infrastructure and services. Property owners may bear approved taxes, assessments and debt-service costs; shoppers may pay an approved sales tax. The law creates financing powers, not a specified project, tax rate or household bill. This review does not establish that subsequent elections, borrowing or construction have occurred. The statutory boundary description, rather than the district’s name, identifies included land; no independent survey or ownership determination is claimed.

The April 25 introduced fiscal note and May 20 engrossed fiscal note anticipate no significant state fiscal impact, assuming costs can be absorbed with existing resources, and no fiscal impact on other local governments. District costs cannot be determined because future financing and charges are unknown. The notes’ generic references to eminent domain do not override the express statutory prohibition. Neither provides a dollar cost estimate.

Official sources

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