2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB5688
HB5688 creates San Benito Municipal Utility District No. 1 on a described 228.77 acres, more or less, in Cameron County.
Official caption: Relating to the creation of the San Benito 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): Lopez, Janie. 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.
- HB5688 creates San Benito Municipal Utility District No. 1 on a described 228.77 acres, more or less, in Cameron County.
- The district receives municipal-utility-district powers and authority to finance, build, maintain and convey roads and related drainage.
- The permanent board has three elected directors serving staggered four-year terms.
- Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval.
- The act became law without the governor's signature June 20, 2025, effective September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
HB5688 creates San Benito Municipal Utility District No. 1 on a described 228.77 acres, more or less, in Cameron County. The two tract descriptions include Rio Grande riverbed and accreted land and expressly exclude specified parcels. The statutory descriptions determine the included land; this review is not an independent boundary or ownership survey.
The district receives municipal-utility-district powers and authority to finance, build, maintain and convey roads and related drainage. Voters must confirm creation and elect three permanent directors. Required municipal consent must come before that election, and the district must comply with applicable consent conditions. Road projects must meet applicable local standards; state-maintained roads require Texas Transportation Commission approval. Districts created by division under the cited general law inherit these powers and duties.
The permanent board has three elected directors serving staggered four-year terms. Alma Gabriela Quiroga, Mario A. Palomo and Joel Quiroga are the named temporary directors. Their terms end when permanent directors are elected or four years after the act takes effect, whichever comes first. The act contains inconsistent successor-board wording: although it establishes three directors, its procedure after temporary terms expire directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to appoint the five people named in a qualifying landowner petition. This explanation does not resolve that inconsistency or assume a five-member permanent board.
Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval. Road bonds backed by property taxes require two-thirds of participating voters’ approval, and their principal at issuance cannot exceed one-fourth of assessed real-property value. Specified revenue- or contract-payment-backed obligations may be issued without a separate bond election; taxes for contract payments require voter approval of the contract. Operating taxes cannot exceed the approved rate. Debt-service taxes supporting outstanding tax-backed bonds have no rate or amount limit specified in this act.
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: the House’s 81–47 vote, with two present but not voting, fell below the two-thirds threshold, activating the 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 have identical operative provisions and boundary descriptions. Printing and certification differences do not change policy. The amendment index lists none; both committees reported without amendments. All five versions are listed in the text index.
The three-member board, five-person successor wording, financing conditions and vote-dependent eminent-domain restriction were present from introduction. No later amendment repaired the board-number inconsistency in these texts.
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 financed utility and road infrastructure. District taxpayers and users may bear taxes, charges and debt-service costs. The act does not establish that confirmation, taxes, borrowing or a particular project have subsequently been approved. The inconsistent successor-director provision could require legal clarification if that appointment procedure becomes necessary; the act itself does not supply a resolution.
The April 29 introduced fiscal note and May 21 engrossed fiscal note anticipate no significant state fiscal effect, assuming existing resources cover costs, and no fiscal effect on other local governments. They cannot determine district costs because future financing and charges are unknown. Their generic references to eminent-domain costs do not override the enacted prohibition. Neither note gives a dollar estimate or 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.
