Alapato CRA Meeting – September 10, 2026: Interlocal Agreement Vote and Amendment
Alapato CRA Meeting – September 10, 2026
The Alapato Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board of Commissioners met on September 10, 2026, at 4:00 PM to consider a single agenda item: Resolution Number One, approving an interlocal agreement between the City of Miami and the Alapato CRA. The meeting included the approval of prior meeting minutes, a initial unanimous vote, a reconsideration motion, and an amendment to the agreement’s tax increment financing (TIF) split percentages.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes of the previous meeting by a unanimous voice vote. (No roll call was recorded, but no objections were raised.)
Discussion Items
- Resolution Number One – Interlocal Agreement: The board initially considered the resolution as presented. After hearing no public comments, the board voted 4‑0 (with one commissioner not yet asked) to approve the resolution. Immediately thereafter, CRA Administrator Keith Carzwell requested reconsideration to allow an amendment proposed by the Chair. The board voted 5‑0 to reconsider, bringing the item back for debate.
- Amendment to TIF Split: The Chair proposed adjusting the interlocal agreement’s TIF revenue distribution: for the first five years, 75% to the CRA, 20% to the City, and 5% to an unnamed party (presumably Miami-Dade County or the School Board, though not specified). Starting in the sixth year, the split would become 60% to the CRA, 35% to the City, and 5% to the third party. The board clarified the percentages total 100% and affirmed the amendment.
Key Outcomes
- First Vote (Original Resolution): Passed unanimously 4‑0 (Chair Gabelli noted “for the record four zero”).
- Reconsideration Motion: Passed 5‑0 (moved by Commissioner Pardo, seconded by Commissioner Rosato).
- Final Vote (Resolution as Amended): Passed unanimously 5‑0 (moved by Commissioner Rosato, seconded by Commissioner Escalona). The amended interlocal agreement was approved. The board noted that the Alapato CRA is newly established and will return to regular meetings in the future.
Meeting Transcript
Give me give me a second. Righty. All right. Are you are you all you ready, Commissioner Gabella? Yes, ma'am. All right. And to the clerk, we got a tape going. Okay, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. Okay, good morning. Uh welcome everyone. Uh I'm calling to order the September tenth, twenty twenty-six Alapato CRA meeting. Uh is there a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Our attorney will briefly uh read the agenda item resolution number one into the record. Good afternoon. Dominique Gabe Sorry. Um City Account City Attorney serving as counsel for the Alapata CRA. Um, there's one item on today's agenda. It's a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Alapata Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing an interlocal agreement between the City of Miami and the Alapata CRA. Okay, thank you very much. The public comm appears now open for resolution number one. Uh is there any comments from the public? Okay, seeing none, um, gonna close it off to the uh public and open it up to the uh the board. Is there any uh discussion about the board members regarding the resolution number one? Board members? No. Okay. Is there a motion to pass resolution number one? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And I will show that it's unanimous for the record four zero. I haven't asked. Um Chair Gabelli adjourned the meeting. Keith Carzwell administrator for Alapatasier. Uh I believe that there is if we can reconsider the item. I think that there is an amendment that the chair wants to proffer as a um to the agreement. Okay, so yeah. Uh so we're reminding the uh the uh the split from uh seventy-five twenty for the first five years, and thereafter commencing on the sixth year, it'll be sixty thirty-five. So, Mr. Clerk, I want to defer to you because they already approved the item as presented, and now we want to make an amendment to the interlocal. Correct, so there need to be a motion to reconsider.
openpublica.com