Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tapestry Village topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Tapestry Village Improvement District over one dissent
Summary
After debate and a failed motion to table, the Trussville City Council approved creation of the Tapestry Village Improvement District 4-1; opponents raised tax and school-impact concerns while the developer and its attorney described exemption and financing mechanisms.
TrussvilleCity Council voted 4-1 on Jan. 13 to establish the Tapestry Village Improvement District, approving Resolution No. 2026-06 after Councilor Jim Miller unsuccessfully moved to table the measure.
The proposal, introduced by Councilor Brian Jackson, drew questions during both the agenda workshop and public comment about where the district would be located, how a nonprofit improvement district would operate, and whether it would be exempt from sales and use taxes on construction materials. Former Mayor Eugene Melton urged the council to require the district to pay such taxes.
Developer Brooks Harris told the council the Tapestry Village project is financially sound and said his company is owned by Berkshire Hathaway; Harris described the development as planned for 189 residences at completion. Heyward Hosch, attorney with Maynard Nexsen, told the council that state law exempts nonprofit improvement districts from paying sales and use taxes for constructing utility infrastructure and explained that such districts typically finance improvements with private bonds repaid through annual assessments on property owners.
Mayor Ben Short clarified in public comment that construction materials purchased by homebuilders for building residences are subject to sales and use tax; Hosch responded that state statute provides the exemption for the kind of improvements the district would undertake. The transcript records Hosch stating his familiarity with the statute and the financing structure he described.
Councilor Miller opposed immediate approval, arguing the council should delay consideration; his motion to table lacked a second and the original resolution passed on roll call with Miller recorded as the sole dissent. The resolution number for the action is 2026-06.
The councilrecord and the presenterscomments left several operational details to be handled after formation, including final boundaries, assessment methodology, and any related agreements; the council did not adopt additional restrictions or tax conditions during the vote. The council took no further administrative actions on school capacity during the final vote, although residents and a developer discussed the projectand the developer gave the 189-residence figure during public comment.
The council moved on to other business after the vote.
