Roosevelt Park Money on Tuesday's Agenda: What the Council Packet Shows

On Tuesday, October 6, the City Council's agenda includes two orders that would move a combined $2,230,219.50 out of the Roosevelt Park Revitalization Project and into the Malden River Works. Both are sponsored by Finance Chair Carey McDonald.¹ The money would help pay for Phase 2 of the River Works, the boathouse and salt shed, which the city's own presentation says is not yet fully funded.²

MNN's September 29 email to the Council, nine questions signed by Brian DeLacey and Bill Muise, is attached to both orders.³ This story reads the full packet and compares the city's September 2026 River Works presentation with the version presented to the Council on December 16, 2025.⁴

What the orders say

• 393-26: repurpose $1,292,045.00 remaining from the appropriation authorized by Paper 139 of 2023 for the Roosevelt Park Revitalization Project to pay River Works costs. The order cites no statute.
• 394-26: transfer $938,174.50 from the appropriation authorized by Paper 140 of 2023, which the order describes as no longer needed to complete the project for which it was borrowed, to River Works costs under M.G.L. c. 44, § 20.

In a September 22 memo attached to the orders, Mayor Gary Christenson wrote that the River Works had been funded "entirely through grants and outside funds" until now, that the money to finish the boathouse and salt shed is insufficient, and that it is appropriate for the city to share some of the cost. He recommended reappropriating funds left over from the cancelled Roosevelt Park project, which he said are not part of the funding for the work currently planned there, and called that a better option than a new borrowing or drawing on reserves.⁵

What the River Works presentation shows

The City Funds line equals the sum of the two orders, about 44 percent of the potential funding for Phase 2. Total potential funding exceeds the estimated cost by $35,467.76, and that cushion depends on the $100,000 state earmark, which is labeled potential. Without it, the table would be $64,532.24 short. The slide itself says not all of the numbers are actuals, and that bidding Phase 2 will determine its real cost.²

Nine months earlier

The December 16, 2025 presentation used a similar template in part, and showed a smaller gap. It put the Phase 2 cost estimate at $4,159,859 against $3,140,232.85 in potential funding, leaving a remaining potential gap of $1,019,626.15, and listed no city funds.⁴ The September request is $1,210,593.35 more than that gap, about 2.2 times as much.

By MNN's arithmetic from the two presentations, a Phase 2 cost increase of $873,616 and a $401,509.59 drop in carryover funding, partly offset by the new $100,000 state earmark, add up to a $1,175,125.59 gap before any city money. The remaining $35,467.76 of the $1,210,593.35 difference is the cushion described above.

Several other details changed or stayed put:

• The $2,000,000 rise in funding received is the Bayrd Foundation grant and the Section 108 loan moving from potential to received.
• Phase 1 rose by $233,189.15. The December slide budgeted $562,030.15 for contingency, and the September slide shows $795,219.30 for contingency to date, which is $233,189.15 higher. The September slide does not say where the added contingency came from.
• Both presentations place the project at Phase 2 fundraising on their timeline slides. December carried a June 2026 date for the end of Phase 1 construction. September shows no dates.
• The star on the December funding slide marks the Section 108 loan. On the September slide it marks City Funds.

Outside funds and city funds

The September presentation says the project has so far not needed to "dip into City funds," and the mayor's memo describes the funding as grants and outside money. The same presentation's list of funding received includes $1,000,000 from the Malden Community Preservation Committee and a $1,500,000 Section 108 loan.² The December presentation described Section 108 as a HUD loan the city would repay over 15 years from federal Community Development Block Grant funds, with payment amounts to be determined after the loan application.⁴

Whether those lines count as city funds depends on a definition the packet does not supply, and it does not state the annual loan payment. MNN's email also asked about a $1,450,000 Community Preservation-backed borrowing, $1,000,000 of which was reallocated to the River Works.³ The packet does not say whether the $1,000,000 Community Preservation line in the presentation is that money.

The Roosevelt Park side

The only document in the packet about work at Roosevelt Park itself is a letter to the Council from a neighbor of the park.⁶ It recounts the 2024 cancellation of the turf project, a September 2024 consultant finding that only the fenced area required action, a February 2026 expanded plan approved by the Conservation Commission, and the start of remediation in the first week of August 2026. The plan it describes is federally funded, maintained by the Department of Public Works, and installs irrigated natural grass throughout the park. The writer calls the funding a repurposed HUD loan, and says the plan called for work to start after school let out in June.

Her concern is that these activities may need more money than is budgeted. She asks whether it would be financially responsible to hold back a buffer before moving funds from the cancelled project to other projects. The letter is one resident's account, and MNN has not independently verified its details.

None of the four attachments gives a current cost estimate for finishing the Roosevelt Park work, or a plan, cost or funding source for elements cut from the original project, such as the outdoor classroom.

MNN's nine questions and the packet

What to watch Tuesday

• Whether the Council takes up 393-26 and 394-26 or holds or refers them. MNN's email said the Finance Committee was scheduled to consider them on September 29. This story does not report the committee's action.
• Which statute and vote threshold the Council applies to 393-26, which cites none.
• Whether the Council asks for the Treasurer's analysis, a Roosevelt Park cost estimate, or Phase 2 bids before money moves.