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

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB5696

HB5696 creates The Reserve Municipal Management District on a described 173.667-acre area by Matlock Road in Mansfield.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the creation of The Reserve Municipal Management District; 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): Cook. 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?

HB5696 creates The Reserve Municipal Management District on a described 173.667-acre area by Matlock Road in Mansfield. It authorizes public improvements and services, including water, wastewater, drainage, roads, recreation and parking. Its project powers expressly include canals, waterways, bulkheads and docks inside or outside its boundaries when serving the stated inland-navigation purposes. District services must supplement—not replace—Mansfield’s existing services.

The district can create a supporting nonprofit corporation and economic-development programs, including loans, grants, personnel and services. It cannot exercise eminent domain. Its five elected directors serve staggered four-year terms. Initial directors Clay Roby, Jimmy O’Neal and Dan White have terms ending June 1, 2027; Joe Smolinski and Jason Moore have terms ending June 1, 2029. Director compensation is capped at $150 per board meeting and $7,200 per year, plus necessary and reasonable expense reimbursement.

Property taxes and property-tax-backed bonds require voter approval. Operating taxes cannot exceed the approved rate; taxes for outstanding tax-backed bonds have no rate or amount limit specified in the act. The first property-tax-backed bond issue requires applicable municipal consent to district creation and land inclusion. Specified revenue- or contract-payment-backed bonds may be issued without an election, subject to the cited contract-payment requirements. The district may also use assessments, impact fees, grants and other authorized money to support obligations.

Financing a service or improvement with assessments requires a petition from owners holding a majority of the assessed real-property value subject to assessment. Assessments can create personal liability and enforceable liens on property. The district may add or exclude land under the cited general laws. Division requires no outstanding bonded debt and no property tax being imposed; resulting districts cannot initially extend outside the act’s territory. Dissolution can follow a board vote or a qualifying two-thirds property-owner petition, but debts, contractual payments and responsibility for public facilities must first be addressed.

The act became law without the governor’s signature June 20, 2025, effective September 1, 2025. Initial House passage was 87–44, with two present but not voting; concurrence in Senate changes was 99–36, with one present but not voting. The Senate vote was 28–3. Sources: enrolled act and certified votes and official history.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill, House committee report and House-passed text have the same operative text. The Senate substitute removed proposed Section 4026.0503(c), a special route for assessment-backed obligations under Local Government Code Chapter 372 when improvements would be conveyed to or maintained by a municipality or retail utility provider under a prior agreement.

That deletion did not remove all authority for assessment-backed borrowing: Section 4026.0503(b) still lists assessments among authorized funding sources. The Senate substitute otherwise matches the final operative text. The amendment index lists no floor amendments; the change occurred through the committee substitute. The text index identifies the versions. Printing and certification differences are not substantive amendments.

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 funded infrastructure and services. Property owners and users could bear taxes, assessments, fees and debt-related costs. The law authorizes financing rather than setting an actual rate or approving a specific development. This review does not establish that subsequent elections, debt issues or projects have occurred. The legal boundary—not a general neighborhood name—determines which properties are included; no independent survey or ownership decision is claimed.

The latest May 27 fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal impact, assuming existing resources cover costs, and no fiscal impact on other local governments. District costs cannot be determined because future borrowing and charges are unknown. The introduced, engrossed, Senate-substitute and passed-second-house notes were also checked; none gives a dollar estimate or household tax calculation.

Official sources

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