The Proposed Bartlet Mall Renovations Would Be a Costly Quagmire

The Townie is an opinion website. The views expressed in this piece belong solely to the author, do not represent those held by The Townie, and should not be interpreted as objective or reported fact.

Created by a glacier some 11,000 years ago, the resulting kettle-hole at the Bartlet Mall has been called the Frog Pond for a long time. The soil which a glacier dug is now on the south side of Greenleaf Street…at Old Hill Burying Ground.

Once, livestock ranged. Festivals were held. A manned hot air balloon was launched. Weddings have been enjoyed. Lots of history and quiet times.

Quoting from the Aqueous Consultants’ 2022 report to the city of Newburyport, “Frog Pond is a former kettle hole that has been manipulated by the colonization and urbanization of humans for centuries. Any natural means of inflow and outflow out of this pond to assist in circulation has been long lost due to human exertion…Throughout history, this pond has had more cultural significance than environmental significance…Former uses for this pond have included livestock watering, Revolutionary War training, fire suppression, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment in an urban park setting.”

The Frog Pond has no outlet other than evaporation. It is fed by rain and snow. It is about 4’ deep and contains about 3,000,000 gallons of water. It was once used to supply water to several underground cisterns for firefighting. Stagnant water has resulted in accumulations of Cyanobacteria, algae arsenic, lead, chromium, phosphorus, cadmium and mercury.

A few months ago, the city administration listed its $5,200,000 remediation as its 3rd highest priority project.

Startling.

Prioritized over roof replacement at the high school, drinking water improvements, and other infrastructure needs.

According to the EPA New England Enforcement and Compliance Division, the city has not yet applied for approvals to direct through stormdrains the contaminated water into the Merrimack.

Quoting from the Aqueous Report, “installing the outlet control structure and a well to continually keep Frog Pond full will improve water quality immediately. However, it may not address cyanobacteria, water clarity, circulation, and aquatic ecology for different variations of climate year after year.”

In direct contrast to the city administration’s statement quoted by The Daily News on May 26, Aqueous advises: “Standup paddleboards should not be used or issued by the City, given the frequency of falling.”

Published plans from the City show pumping out of the current contents of the Frog Pond to city storm-drains to the Merrimack River…then a well and a pump station to provide continuous pumping of water out to city storm-drains…to the Merrimack River.

With a planned 16-inch granite curb encircling the Frog Pond, how will the painted and snapping turtles survive?
They must come ashore to lay eggs.
They are aquatic turtles, not land turtles.
They cannot scale stone.
They cannot walk to a reservoir.
They cannot file a complaint.

And yet the city administration has not authorized a wildlife inventory. Why? Because no endangered species have been identified. And without identification, there is no obligation. No data, no duty. Ends justify means.

This is not stewardship.
It’s a procedural loophole dressed as landscape architecture.
It’s a granite wall against biology.
It’s a granite curb that curves away from accountability.

To me, concerns center around:

* We have $68 million in safe drinking water priorities!

* Approximately 40 trees shed leafs into the Frog Pond.

* Once the pond is drained and a plastic liner is installed, how will DPS remove leafs…yearly?

* With a planned 16” high granite curb around the shoreline, how will the approximately 47 painted and snapping turtles survive…as they need to come ashore to lay eggs?

* With a 20hp motor at 80 decibels (vacuum cleaner) in a structure adjacent to the existing playground flushing 600 gallons a minute into storm drains, how will peace and tranquility of the beautiful park be maintained?

* How will the city pay for annual maintenance…see Annual Maintenance beginning on Page 52 of the study done for the city.

* How will residents be protected from dust containing Cyanobacteria, arsenic, lead, chromium, phosphorus, cadmium and mercury? These will be exposed to the wind as the Frog Pond is drained, the fountain addressed and before the plastic sheeting is applied.

* As a member of the Bartlet Mall Commission, we got a bit of water to come out the top of the fountain. We secured professionals to examine the fountain. It’s sinking. Its interior pipes have holes. Lack of maintenance has results. It’ll cost about $500,000 to replace the fountain.

Infrastructure over optics, please.

Let’s demand stewardship, not spectacle.

Walt Thompson
Newburyport resident

Passionate about a local issue? We want to hear from you. Check out our submission guidelines.

Subscribe to our Newsletter


Comments

9 responses to “The Proposed Bartlet Mall Renovations Would Be a Costly Quagmire”

  1. Nick Beaudoin Avatar
    Nick Beaudoin

    Excellent article

  2. Dorothy Mugavero Avatar
    Dorothy Mugavero

    Five million for mall. Plum island has no life guards or Emergency center???

  3. Susan Hochstedler Avatar
    Susan Hochstedler

    Rename it “The Turtle Pond”, and prioritize their needs. This article makes some very good points about this ill-conceived project.

  4. Steve Portman Avatar
    Steve Portman

    The priorities in this city sure are puzzling. Bartlett Mall is #3 on the capital improvement plan(page 13), submitted by the administration in May.

    The new Rec Center, which the Mayor said was his top priority, was #8 on the list.

    We pave mostly dead end and other short streets – while our heavily traveled streets are in terrible shape.

    Maybe the new Dog Mayor can help turn things around.

  5. I am incredibly disappointed about the amount of misinformation in this “story” that Walt wrote. Let’s start with the funding. The Capital Improvement Plan you are citing that notes the Bartlet Mall as highly ranked is because the Mall project is “construction ready”. It has all of its permits in place (despite what Walt says) and has some outside sources of money. The Bartlet Mall project can in no way compete with infrastructure priorities. Why? Because the funds for the Bartlet Mall project would come from completely different pots of money. The Bartlet Mall project already has about $750,000 in funds available from private foundations (mostly the Morrill Foundation whose mission is about beautifcation in Newburyport’s parks) and about $140,000 from prior Community Preservation Act funds. In addition, the City has gotten very positive feedback about the possibility of being awarded a state grant–the Land and Water Conservation Fund–this grant is for outdoor recreation. The City asked for around $750,000 in funding from this grant, and we’ll find out if we are to be given the funds this fall. Finally, the remaining funds needed would be requested (bonded from) from the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds. If you don’t know about the CPA here some facts for a change: In 2002, Newburyport residents voted to adopt the CPA, which is a 2% surcharge on real estate taxes for all property owners. The surtax does not apply to the first $100,000 of residential property value, and property owned by any person who qualifies for low-income housing. The Commonwealth matches in amounts that have varied each year, from 26% to 100% of local revenue.

    Bonding backed by CPA funds does not increase real property taxes. The CPA surtax is permanently fixed at 2% of the local property tax levy.

    By law, CPA funds may be used to fund city projects in four categories:
    (1) open space, (2) recreation, (3) affordable housing, and (3) historic preservation. Many projects in Newburyport are ineligible for CPA funds, such as the new center planned on Low Street for Recreation and Youth Services, as well as many water and sewer projects which bond from user fees.

    Other city projects that have bonded against CPA funds include restoration of War Memorial Stadium at Newburyport High School (paid off in 2030), the Cherry Hill soccer fields (paid off in 2030), Bradley T. Fuller Track (paid off in 2036), and expansion of Market Landing Park (paid off in 2039).

    The Bartlet Mall project checks two of the categories for the eligible projects that can use these CPA funds: historic preservation and outdoor recreation. And, in fact, new technology for water quality issues may also allow us to decrease the total project cost and ask the Community Preservation Committee for less funds.

    Walt’s facts about the turtles are wrong, too. For now, the granite “wall” is not included in the project. But, even when it was proposed, there were areas for both the turtles and ice skaters (remember them?) to access the pond. And, by the way, better water quality for the turtles is something you want.

    And the leaves that are dropped into the pond are not what impacts the water quality. It’s high levels of phosphorous that cause the algae blooms. The proposed project deals with the water quality and improves the habitat for the species there.

    Finally, please don’t try to make this project about the current mayor’s race and misplaced priorities. This project has been in the works for at least 15 years, in that many, many volunteers and staff under different administrations have been looking at this water quality issue and how to solve it.

    If you would like to learn some real facts about the Bartlet Mall and this project, go to http://www.portparksalliance.com.

    1. Walt Thompson Avatar
      Walt Thompson

      Hi Andrea,

      Thank you for your comment.

      From EPA:

      “Mr. Thompson:

      “I’ve reviewed the information provided and viewed additional materials on the town website. In their slide presentations they say the town will pump and treat the water then discharge under an EPA “DRGP”. DRGP is our Discharge Remediation General Permit. I spoke with my colleague that manages that program and she has not yet seen an application for that site.

      “I could not tell what the planned schedule was for discharging the current contents of the pond – do you know what the schedule is? Either way, we’ll be looking for an application from the town and make sure the proposed treatment addresses the contaminants found in the studies. I will reach out if we get the permit application to let you know.”

      Andrea, this is not an election issue.

      Rather, it was sent towards educating incoming city councilors and other residents.
      Seems city administration was happy to pump polluted Frog Pond contents directly into city storm drains.

      When you and I were both on the Bartlet Mall Commission you may recall our extensive investigations re polluted water management.

      Without drama.

      We were told that expensive dewatering and offsite solid waste disposals would be required.

      I’ll gladly send you the name of the EPA official who wrote to me. The city administration has his letter.

      The city administration has since apologized to EPA and will seek appropriate permitting once the project is truthfully presented.

      Money comes from taxpayers.
      We need infrastructure repairs over optics, please.

      Thank you for writing.

      Best,

      Walt

    2. susan benveniste Avatar
      susan benveniste

      Thank you for your detailed response regarding how different funds are used for city projects. That clarity means everything and I am inspired to follow the port park alliance.

  6. Michael Sales Avatar
    Michael Sales

    Well researched and well written, Walt!
    You’ve definitely moved the needle tracking my attention to a higher level on this issue.

  7. I should have also added that the project was high on the CIP because it has HUGE environmental benefits! Gee. Imagine thinking that’s important?!

Leave a Reply to Michael Sales Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *