Four Days, One Unanswered Question

On Thursday, September 24, Councillor-at-Large Karen Colón Hayes emailed Mayor Gary Christenson and Alex Pratt, head of the city's Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development, copying Finance Committee Chair Carey McDonald. Her question was about the $2.2 million the mayor wants to move out of Roosevelt Park accounts: whether "any of this funding could be used to complete Roosevelt Park."¹ She also asked whether pieces cut from the original project, such as the educational garden for students, could be restored.

The mayor answered about four days later, on the afternoon of Monday, September 28, the day before the Finance Committee takes up the transfer. Within two hours, Colón Hayes wrote back that his reply "doesn't answer the question I asked." Reading the reply, we agree. It covers the remediation work and the cancelled improvement project, but it never says whether the money could be used at Roosevelt Park.

What the mayor's reply said

The mayor opened by telling the councillor there seemed to be "some confusion on your part." He then made five points. The ongoing remediation at Roosevelt Park is continuing as planned. The money at issue belongs to the improvement project he cancelled about two and a half years ago. His memo at the time said any new improvements would need a fresh community planning process and someone to lead it, and he expected community leaders like Colón Hayes, who had strongly opposed the original plan, to help organize one. No substantive proposal has emerged since, so the bond funds have sat unused for more than two years, which the Treasurer has said carries financial risk, including possible arbitrage penalties. And repurposing the money, with River Works facing a funding gap, was in his view the most practical and fiscally responsible course. He added that the decision does not permanently close the door on future Roosevelt improvements.

Some of this is not new. His April 29, 2024 memo already asked "the same vocal voices who opposed this approach" to take a leadership role in what came next.² The position is consistent. What the reply leaves out is the councillor's actual question. It also gives no figure for the River Works gap. The mayor's September 22 memo says only that funding for the vertical construction, the boat house and salt shed, is insufficient.³

Going back to at least August 2020, Mayor Christenson has been aware of the active community engagement of Friends of Roosevelt Park.

The reply, checked against the record

The money at issue was created by two Council papers, both sponsored by Councillor McDonald and adopted on May 23, 2023.⁴ Paper 139-23 appropriated $1.3 million of general fund free cash for additional costs of the Roosevelt Park improvements, by a 7-4 vote. The mayor's March 2023 memo tied that request to cost escalation, added soft costs from the appeals, and updated fill-disposal costs.⁵ Paper 140-23 authorized $1.2 million in borrowing, by an 11-0 vote, to excavate soil to three feet, a change in scope.

Order #393-26 would repurpose $1,292,045 of the first. Order #394-26 would transfer $938,174.50 of the second, citing G.L. c. 44, § 20.⁶ Together that is $2,230,219.50: about 58 percent free cash and 42 percent borrowed money.

Two cautions. First, the city's own paperwork is inconsistent on one point. The October 2024 chart describes the free-cash appropriation as specific to removing soil to three feet.⁷ The Council papers and the March 2023 memo place the three-foot excavation in the $1.2 million borrowing and describe the free cash as general additional project costs. We have followed the Council papers, and the Committee may want the city to say which description is right. Second, on arbitrage: whether that concern reaches the free-cash half of this money is a question only the Treasurer or bond counsel can answer, and the Committee can ask for the answer in writing.

How we got here

In March 2023 the mayor told the Council that no alternative plan would win consensus, that doing nothing was "the worst of all options," and that the papers gave the Council a chance to decide whether the project would proceed. The Council decided, 7-4 on the free cash and 11-0 on the borrowing. The file for Paper 139-23 carries 108 attachments, among them public comments both opposing and supporting the project, letters, and staff presentations.

On April 29, 2024, after the low bid came in $1.6 million above the available funds, the mayor cancelled the project, saying it would be ill-advised to seek another appropriation. His memo said the decision left the city with no solution and starting over. In October 2024 he told the Council the fenced hazard area could be cleaned up and restored for about $850,000, that permits would be sought in early 2025 with work hoped to begin in summer 2025, and that some of the project's approved funding sources could pay for it.⁸

In November 2024 the Council adopted Paper 412-24, sponsored by Councillors Ari Taylor and Colón Hayes, asking the Finance Committee to invite the planning office to present an update on the status of all funding sources for the Roosevelt Park soil remediation.⁹ Friends of Roosevelt Park had urged the Council to act, listing about $5 million in unspent money across four sources.¹⁰ Nearly two years later, according to Friends of Roosevelt Park, work promised for last June began with site setup in August and then stalled while the city lined up contracts to dispose of contaminated soil.¹¹

Questions for the Finance Committee

The Committee takes up orders #393-26 and #394-26 on Tuesday, September 29. The record leaves these questions open:

1. Can any of the $2,230,219.50 be used to complete Roosevelt Park or to restore elements cut from the original plan, such as the educational garden? This is Councillor Colón Hayes's September 24 question, and the correspondence we have does not answer it.
2. What is the current cost estimate and funding source for finishing the remediation and restoration, and what happens if soil-disposal costs rise?
3. Which parts of this money does the Treasurer's arbitrage concern cover? Order #393-26 draws on free cash, not borrowing. The Committee should ask for the Treasurer's analysis in writing.
4. Which legal mechanism and vote threshold apply to each order? Order #394-26 cites G.L. c. 44, § 20, and order #393-26 cites no statute. The city's 2024 chart said the borrowed funds could be reallocated to a 'similar or like project.' Does the Solicitor consider a boat house and salt shed at River Works to be one?
5. What accounts for the $28,490.48 difference between the $966,664.98 the city listed as remaining in October 2024 and the $938,174.50 in order #394-26?
6. What came of the update requested in Paper 412-24 in November 2024 - That the Finance Committee invite staff from the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development to appear in committee to present an update on the status of all funding sources regarding the remediation of soil at Roosevelt Park - and where is the record of it?
7. How large is the River Works funding gap these orders are meant to close, and what is the project's current full budget? What is the history of adopted and revised budgets during the life of the River Works project
8. What is the complete summary and status of money obtained for and distributed from the Roosevelt Park Improvement project? (See the city's 2024 chart, including the $1,450,000 Community Preservation-backed borrowing which reallocated $1 million of that to Malden River Works and $450,000 of that to Devir Park)
9. What is the status of the $1,198,387.77 HUD Section 108 loan (shown on the city's 2024 chart), and what funds are being put towards the restoration and revival of the Roosevelt Park Outdoor Classroom?

The mayor may have good answers to each of these. So far, none appears in the record we have.

Related Coverage

Roosevelt Park Money Moves

September 23, 2026