Bayfront Park Trust meeting spotlights allegations of no‑bid contracts, missing records; chairman pushes for forensic audit

MIAMI — At a special meeting of the Bayfront Park Trust on May 20, 2025, residents, former board members and trust personnel raised repeated allegations of mismanagement, no‑bid emergency contracts and missing or incomplete records tied to the trust that runs Bayfront Park and Maurice Ferre Park.

"For those of us that care deeply about Bayfront Park… the constant there has been the chaos cloud that surrounds 1 commissioner in particular," resident Fernando Monti said during public comment, summarizing concerns voiced by multiple speakers about past stewardship of the trust.

The meeting brought a string of specific allegations from speakers: that a no‑bid emergency contract worth roughly $5.5 million was awarded to a company identified in testimony as DG Aqua to restore a long‑dormant fountain; that the fountain work lacked completed permitting and safety features such as a permanent railing and warning signs; that tens of thousands of dollars in cash were handled without consistent controls; and that park assets and staff time were used to support district political activity rather than trust business.

Former board member Christina Palomo said she resigned in part because of how a project was advanced without due process. "I walk into a meeting 1 day that is scheduled. It is not an agenda item, and it was proposed to take a vote on that million dollar or so project expenditure," she said, describing a single bid that she said arrived to private email addresses and not the board.

Multiple speakers described transfers of trust reserves to the City of Miami general fund during earlier administrations. Palomo said she later confirmed that a large transfer had occurred and that she could not get a successful reconsideration of the vote; another speaker described $3 million or $4 million being redirected. Grant Stern urged a forensic approach to recover allegedly missing funds and recommended filing IRS Form 211 (Application for Award for Original Information) as one path to recover assets, saying the audit information could be provided to federal investigators.

Chairman Gabella opened the board portion with a presentation of exhibits and a catalogue of concerns the board is reporting publicly. Gabella described examples including: food‑bag assemblies on trust property bearing a district logo while staff time and trust funds were used for the work; an outstanding $1,102 invoice for a temporary fence contractor for an event at Jose Marti Park that the chair said the trust will not pay while it investigates; trust trucks and assets used at district events; multiple contracts and resolutions without complete execution or consistent signatures; and alleged unpaid invoices to a contractor who completed fountain work without a permit.

Gabella said a forensic audit is needed. "A forensic audit is needed based on all the inconsistencies that we have found," he told the audience, and said the board had called for audit work previously that had not been completed.

Outside counsel — who identified himself in the meeting transcript as Mason Pernoy — cautioned the board that public disclosures during pending litigation could affect the trust's insurance coverage and could raise privilege issues. "Statements that are made on the public record may have a significant impact in that pending litigation for the trust," Pernoy said, urging the board to consider privileged briefings before some disclosures.

Several speakers urged stronger accounting systems and transparency. Resident Denise Galvez, who has contracted with the trust in the past, said the trust lacked a digital accounting system and offered to help with implementation: "It's absolutely absurd to me that in 2025, Bayfront Trust has ledgers and has no digital accounting system," she said.

Speakers alleged a range of specific dollar figures and operational claims. Testimony referenced: a roughly $5.5 million no‑bid contract for fountain restoration; a contractor owed about $400,000 for work on a control structure roof; allegations that $3 million–$4 million were transferred from the trust to the City of Miami general fund in prior years; claims of $5,000,000 a year being misappropriated in prior periods and larger multi‑year totals raised by public commenters; and an alleged $500,000 bonus tied to completion timing (sources to the claim were commenters).

The board did not record a formal vote on audit authorization at the meeting. Gabella said some measures require formal board approval and could not be completed at the special meeting because they were not on the posted agenda; he said he would pursue actions deemed necessary and noted work already begun, including hiring a chief financial officer and beginning steps toward additional oversight mechanisms.

The meeting featured repeated calls from members of the public for the trust to return money to taxpayers where appropriate and for law enforcement or state investigators to review allegations. Several commenters suggested referring exhibits and audit findings to the state attorney, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) or federal authorities; one commenter specifically recommended filing IRS Form 211.

The discussion was frequently contested on the floor: supporters of the former chair and several current or former trust staff disputed allegations and defended prior contracting and fundraising activities. Counsel and the chairman exchanged public warnings about the legal implications of certain disclosures while the trust addresses pending litigation.

What happens next: Chair Gabella said the board will pursue a forensic audit and additional oversight steps but that some actions require formal agenda items and board votes. The transcript records a public commitment by the chair to continue reporting what the board finds and to move forward "to put mechanisms in place to make sure this doesn't happen again," language he used while describing measures already started.

The meeting focused on public allegations, board exhibits and procedural next steps; no formal disciplinary or criminal findings were announced at the session.