NORTH SMITHFIELD – Dozens of school busses line the property, visible to travelers along Providence Pike, and seem to have been parked there for as long as anyone can remember.
But according to a notice sent out to the owner of the lot at 25 Railroad St. this month, storage of the vehicles on the North Smithfield property may not be legal.
Building Official Kerry Anderson sent a letter to property owner First Student following an inquiry about the busses from Town Council President John Beauregard.
“They’re just sitting there falling apart,” said Beauregard of the vehicles, which have dominated the 2-acre lot for decades. “I want that place cleaned up. It’s an eyesore.”
The letter, sent to the company on Monday, Jan. 10, notes that in 2013, the property was cited for a number of maintenance violations, including storage of unlicensed and inoperative vehicles.
“There are no records for approval of this use,” noted Anderson.
The property is zoned, “business neighborhood,” and according to the town’s zoning ordinance, a special use permit is required for any type of vehicle rental business. Open lot storage of serviceable automotive equipment in the zone is prohibited.
The issue is also addressed in the Rhode Island Property Maintenance Code which states that, “no inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked, kept or stored on any premises,” except as provided in other regulations.
In 2014, the owner was cited three times for property maintenance over high grass according to the communication, sent care of William Roache.
Town property records show the lot, which holds an 880-square-foot garage built in 1978, has been owned by United Truck & Bus Service Company since at least 1999. Dozens of buses can be seen parked on the asphalt beside the structure, surrounded by a five foot fence that has several sections in disrepair.
Former Town Councilor Anthony Soly told NRI NOW this week that the issue of the lot’s appearance also came up when he was serving on the board between 2015 and 2016, and members were able to determine that the bus storage operation was a pre-existing non-conforming use as it pre-dated zoning requirements.
Filings with the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation note that First Student, Inc. is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The business first registered with the state in 1988 and later purchased Laidlaw Transit, Inc. It merged with Town & Country Transportation and Leasing Corp. in 1992 and with Galloway School Lines, Inc. in 1995. The company holds transportation contracts for several school districts in the state.
But Beauregard questioned if the vehicles parked in North Smithfield have been used at all in recent years, noting the buses all appear to be out of service and were not dug out after the recent snow storm.
“At one point, they were being used,” Beauregard said, adding now, “They’re just sitting there rotting- it’s like a bus graveyard.”
The council president said he’s not sure how long the vehicles have been parked on the lot.
“They have been there forever,” he said. “I don’t remember them ever not being there.”
Anderson said he has also tried to reach the company by phone, but has yet to receive a response.
Editor’s note: The above article has been updated from its original version to reflect information about property owner First Student.
Ya big dumby….those buses keep getting sold and replaced with other out of contract buses. And yes we all call it the graveyard even before first student took over Laidlaw. Call it an eye soar all u want, next door has old cars that look like eye soars to me yet the next person could say they look sweet. Go on pound hill and say the power lines r eye soars. Get over urself u cud turn anything into a big deal even tho it isn’t. Is this written by a high school student trying to get extra credit. If it is legit then God, u clearly don’t have anything else better to report
As an FYI for comment readers: The author of the one above had a change of heart and felt it was a bit harsh. I was given permission to take it down – but I felt if everyone was going to bash each other on this story (which, by the way, is definitely not groundbreaking, a huge controversy or my best work,) that I should also be willing to take my share of the insults.
Here is a link to view aerial imagery dating back to 1939. Looks like busses started parking there back sometime between 1988 and 1997. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a2960d1a022e4dccaab14aa4a58f5d45
Thanks B L for bringing that tool into the conversation but isn’t it showing buses in the 1981 photos? The lot is vacant in the 1972 photos so it would seem they first appeared sometime between 72 and 81.
So a town official pursues an issue that appears to be a zoning violation or maybe even just an unsightly land use allowed by pre-existing condition only to be criticized and faced with a wild hypothesis on our police station need. How sad is that? Any idea that this privately owned property could be quickly obtained for a public project is absurd.
Anyone who has wrestled with zoning issues is aware that there is a cumbersome and time consuming process in local ordinance and sometimes the courts for pursuing these problems. The Buxton St matter and the property across from Slatersville Plaza are prime examples. Change in both cases took time, yes, but only took place due to persistent, diligent and responsible actions by town officials.
Something smells all right. It’s the foul smell of unfounded conspiracy theory by a person who just can’t accept other opinions and higher expectations in public affairs. No matter how many times the cheap, cheaper and cheapest approach fails us some will stand by those ambitions. Some will say it’s just my opinion of course, but I know there is substantial support for pursuit of best value, not cheap wrapped in conspiracy theory.
Gary, I would listen to others opinions but when certain politicians pave a low traffic road with a full restoration and ignore high traffic roads in deplorable conditions it makes it difficult to trust the ideas and motives. Also when the only opinion that you consider is your opinion of a small group and not a facts based option of what is best for the town and taxpayers. Facts based analysis decisions with the best interest of the town is true leadership. Just think about this fact how much better will police protection and service be with a $17 million police station or a $5 million remodel. The answer is zero.
Mr. Devito, maybe one day you will step up to be responsible for assembling a plan that fits a road condition survey, a budget, a sewer utility plan, a water utility plan, construction and contracting feasibility, and engineering work already completed by prior initiatives all while also avoiding borrowing to do the paving, the sewer work and the water work. If you observed three years of budget work you might also know it was my continuing objective to get our council to build an annual road repaving budget up to $800,000 per year so we could ultimately manage a plan to get to every road without borrowing.
As to the police station, according to the Nov 2016 presentation by the leadership of the former PBIC the plans created in their behalf would yield a facility with ability to serve for only ten years. While in office I sought opinion of both our residents, our police leadership along with professionals in design and construction. I listened. I didn’t cover my ears and repeat cheap, cheaper, cheapest. A quality facility is a critical part of quality police service. We compete for officers today both as new recruits and seasoned officers. Conditions where good people work matters to professionals. Beyond that there is a basic issue of safety for our personnel, any detainee, and the neighborhood. And, there is the issue of long term value which in basic terms is pay now or pay more later. Our history as a town clearly shows we yield the best value when we do things right the first time.
Mr. Ezovski, while you did budget $800,000 you never come close to spending the budget. Just look at prior years where you spent significantly less on roads but gave large increases to unions and had plenty of money for a specific low traffic road. I only look at actual spending and the paving report plan you have never followed. And now for the police station, a quality police station does not equal a quality police force or productivity. I just don’t state my opinion like some people I know with no data. If you read management theory aka the Hawthorne studies you would find that the Hawthorne studies discovered that workers were highly responsive to additional attention from their managers and the feeling that their managers actually cared about, and were interested in, their work. Not the working conditions/facility that they actually made better in one control group and worse in the other group and productivity went up more in the 2nd group. Now the issue that you miss is you kept wasting money on consultants until they produced a report to support your opinion. So the three prior consultants where wrong but the last one was right. The other issue is the town can not afford the Taj Mahal police station. Just like I would love to live in a Newport mansion bye the water but I can’t afford the mortgage and maintenance so I live within my means. Just remember the police station was at the town annex that we now rent for $1 and still pay the maintenance. Another great financial decision. Just remember peoples opinions are great but they must be supported with sound data not theory with zero analysis. If you told people taxes are going to go up 4% every year with zero fiscal responsibility they would have a different opinion. Why don’t you tell people when they vote on a new police station that taxes will increase by 4% for the next 5 years. The lack of fiscal responsibility is a direct reflection on the poor quality public education.
Mr Devito, your response emphasizes your lack of valid information. During my first year in office I realized the town had no true road rebuilding plan in place. What we had was just an inadequate budget amount with no plan so the budgeted funds were what I saw as a DPW slush fund. Based on costs realized in the previous bond funded project I advocated to increase the paving budget by $100k per year to ultimately have ability to pave two miles per year every year. The councils added some but didn’t provide the full addition in each subsequent year. My recall is the highest amount provided was $550k. So contrary to your assertion, based on council decisions, not mine, there has yet to be a year of full $800k funding. We used the allotments from successive years to amass sufficient funds to do two projects that were large enough to attract contractor bids. About 3.5 miles were rebuilt in my tenure without bonding but with solid justification for every lineal foot.
As to union contracts I am quite certain that if you actually review the agreements I negotiated you will find no justification for your assertion of “large increases to unions”. Did we adjust some individual rates for below market wages? Yes, with concessions on health care contributions and time off. I stand by those agreements which were supported by budget committees and council’s.
On the policing matter, with all due respect to Hawthorne and others they haven’t hired police officers in RI. The basic difference in our positions is you think we can make do and fix it later by making a few repairs to a school while making believe it is a police station, and then in a few years go knock it down and build something new. My background and experience in both the private and public arenas along with the input received from qualified professionals causes me to say acting now will bring the lowest ultimate cost and the best long term value. So it is cheap vs best value. I will stay with value.
Gary my facts are correct. You did a study that told you what you need to spend to properly maintain the roads and you chose not to spend the recommended amount because you needed to fund union increases and other spending and now you want me to believe that spending millions of dollars on police station is in the best interest of the town. First off you mention value but you do not support the decision with a ten year financial plan that includes free cash flow, debt servicing and a net present value calculation. You just give taxpayers an anecdotal story of how we can not attract police officers. Again let’s see the data of open positions and number of applicants. I heard the same comment at the school department but when I asked the superintendent how many applicants we received for open positions it was in the double digits. This seems like a manipulation by the police chief and union to increase wages to make his job easier to hire and think it will make officers happier and he will be liked. Now if you read frederic hertzberg’s management study you would find that money is not the ultimate motivation. Employees are motivated by factors such as sense of accomplishment and achieving goals and money will not make you happy if the organization is dysfunctional and not providing the sense of achievement and the intrinsic value obtained from the job itself. Now if we look a education I was educated in old school buildings but it was not about the facility but the teachers and leaders concern to educate. This is also proven in many management studies. But today in North Smithfield we spent value dollars in buildings and salaries only to see test scores of only 50% of the students are proficient in math. So that means 50% are not proficient. So the value spend theory did not yield the desired results. Thus I can conclude that building and police station aka throw money at the issue will not work in this case. So I will choose scientific and financial analysis over perceived value. I am also not bringing into the discussion the lack of quality we receive as taxpayers.
Mr. Devito
I was away for a bit so please excuse the time taken to respond. And though others may suggest it is not wise to entertain such discussion I think it is essential to engage those who express invalid information on matters of public policy.
I will start by saying the “study” you reference that I did was simply my own evaluation of how to ultimately get more than 60 miles of roads to a point where none were more than 30 years old. If we rebuild two miles each year we can get to a point where none are more than 2 years old. This isn’t rocket science!
Contrary to your assertion I held fast to that to my last day in office. My recommendation was to add an ambitious $100k per year to road resurfacing to ultimately reach the $800k and 2 mile per year objective. Going from $200k to $800k simply wasn’t feasible within the 4 years I had in office. You insist that I “chose not to spend the recommended amount because you needed to fund union increases”. Since we never got up to $800k it occurred to me that your statement was actually in reference to my June 2020 Covid based recommendation to the town council that we establish a contingency fund for the possibility that the state budget not include full funding for education as had been announced by state officials. That recommendation was made to minimize possibility for need to issue a “fifth quarter” tax bill if the state in fact failed to fully fund education due to impact from the covid virus. The council accepted that recommendation. Funds from the road reconstruction account and a few others were transferred to contingency by the council including $350k of roadway funds. However, as I recommended at the outset, those funds were ultimately returned to the individual accounts after the legislature approved a state budget that fully funded education. So, while that budget challenge delayed the allocation of some roadway funds the total mileage of roadway reconstruction made possible during my time in office was not changed. What you have tried to do is use part of our reality to fuel all of your argument.
Finally, to your last broad based bashing comment: “the lack of quality we receive as taxpayers” was the proverbial straw on the camel. In my four years in office or since, I have not heard from, or of, a person named Tom Devito. Search of online phone books also yields no Tom DeVito in NS. I have also learned that there is no Tom DeVito in the NS voter list and there is no NS taxpayer named Tom DeVito. So, I don’t know who you really are or what it is you are trying to do, but I respond anyway with intent to provide factual information for any reader seeking information on how some things have really transpired and how some, like me, who have a long history in NS public policy, think we can and should move forward.
Oops.
Sorry. Typing error. In the end of the first paragraph it should say ” none is more than 30 years old”.
Ok here are the actual paving numbers. 2018 budget $300,000 actual 89,311. 2019 budget 350,000 actual 122,551, 2020 budget 450,000 actual 110,458, 2021 budget 250,000 actual 3/31/21 25,921. Can’t maintain roads by only spending around $100,000 a year. You can talk about a budget and paving roads but you have to actually spend the money and pave the roads. So in the last 4 years we did not actually increase spending at all. But now you think you somehow have millions of dollars to waste on a police station. But the town did had money to pave a low traffic road for 2 politicians. The truth hurts!!!
While I am sure the rest of the world has moved on, I am happy to continue this discussion. Let me begin by saying, here you go again Mr. DeVito(?). Once again you choose information to fit your argument without looking for all the details. Let’s look at what actually happened from 2018 to 2020 while also recognizing that I had little to no control over the final 2021 road reconstruction spending.
While it is accurate to say we didn’t spend significant funds on paving in the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years, at my recommendation, funds were allotted by the council but not spent. They were repeatedly held over by the council in a reserve account (common practice) to build a resource that would fund a project of reasonable size. With ample funds finally available, in October of 2018 at my recommendation and with council approval, we re-engaged Pare Engineering to finish work that was at 50% completion in a prior contract on roads that were identified in the 2014 Casali Engineering Roadway study. Roads for Pare’s work were selected after field evaluation with DPW and consideration of other infrastructure plans including those of the sewer and water departments all with intent to avoid reopening new surfaces and of course, all with ultimate approval by the town council. The street(s) that you imply to have been paved for benefit of elected officials I assume are Parkview Drive and Edward Ave. Many may be unaware that a DEM required storm water discharge monitoring program has identified stormwater in that area to contain bacteria levels that require action. Ultimately, at recommendation of the sewer commission and approval of the town council, a sanitary sewer project was authorized to target both elimination of the stormwater problem and the continuing use of cesspools in the last well developed area of Slatersville that had yet to be part of a sewer program. (By the way, my home on N Main had already been connected to sewers since the mid 1980’s.) The decision to pave those streets had nothing to do with the names or positions of any resident and everything to do with their presence in the Casali study and the need for sewers.
As to actual spending, Pare Engineering’s 2018 contract was for $58,767. Their work resulted in a request for proposals that ended with a May 2019 award to T Miozzi Construction at a cost of $823,994.88. The final piece of my roadway reconstruction effort was forced to be part of the water line extension needed to overcome groundwater problems on Mechanic and Old Great Road. Though the waterline installation started earlier, the curb to curb repaving of those streets wasn’t authorized when the project started because there were insufficient funds remaining in the accumulated roadway reconstruction account. It was in August of 2020 when some funds from the 2020-2021 allotment were finally available that the work on those streets was approved. The activity in reserve accounts can’t be shown in year over year budgets without creating confusion. Unfortunately, I think the reserve account is the reason for your misunderstanding on this matter. A review of the town’s audit would show the detail on those accounts.
In short, with funding accumulated during my tenure, we started a program to continuously improve our roads. Without bonding or borrowing of any kind we paved about 3.5 miles at costs of about $1.3 million. (I trust your time in the construction world would easily make you aware that the alleged $347k total spending that you reference could never achieve 3.5 miles of road work.) I would suggest it would be more productive to spend time advocating for the increase in spending that I have offered. The current administration has offered a budget proposal for 22-23 that again would fail to increase the annual allotment. If you started to voice concern for that now in public meetings, it could help but it would be the first time I heard roadway paving advocacy of any form from someone named DeVito!
Why are people looking for something to be wrong with this request. Do we really want a bus graveyard in NS. It seems some people are never happy unless they are complaining or stirring the pot.
You would know. Your name keeps popping up everywhere people are complaining.
Mr. Clifford might well have a valid point there. Of course, he really should have some evidence, some proof, some corroboration for his hypothesis to truly be valid, but why let facts get in the way of an unbalanced rant, right? He is certainly entitled to his opinion – that is, if you indeed want something that smells.
When the stone bridge area was rebuilt, the Town missed an important opportunity to turn that whole area into something beautiful and revenue-generating, like so many other Towns have done with historic areas. There is a lake, old dams and mill features, historic buildings – everything needed to develop something to attract residents and tourists. Maybe (wishful, but hopeful thinking) there is an actual vision for this historic and potentially beautiful area. You wouldn’t know it by the extremely unprofessional remark by one of our Town officials, but maybe NS can catch up with other municipalities that are developing open and public spaces and incubators for small business development, rather than allowing continued blight like this junkyard and others nearby.
Something smells folks!! Gee… I wonder if some Town Officials have their sights set on buying this property to be used as the future home of the new $17 million dollar police station they are pushing to build, rather than completely renovating the current building for roughly $5 million?
No news articles were written, or big action taken by the Town, about the stench from the zoning issue on Buxton Street until the entire neighborhood was in an uproar and no serious action was taken to get the unsightly mess on the lot across from Statesville Plaza cleaned up until residents and neighbors presented a petition to the Town Council, but suddenly, after all these years, Town Officials are questioning the storage of these buses. My, what a surprise.
Really? You have a problem with this too? You really have some issues don’t you?
I think Mr. Clifford does have a point. The issue is the town should figure out what can be afforded not what some politicians want. We would all want to live in a mansion but we can’t afford the mortgage and ongoing maintenance so we do what we can afford and be fiscally responsible. But it is easy to spend taxpayers money when politicians have no financial skills or background. We also have the union entitlement and thinking in play in this case. Just remember most unions bankrupted RI manufacturing and fiscally irresponsible spending could bankrupt the town. I am also going to guessing that the back room politicians have made a decision to waste more taxpayers money on a senior center at the Halliwell property.
I’m confused. What do your comments have to do with busses? Where in this article does it say anything about a police station? It’s either a zoning violation or it’s not. Don’t take the bait.
I think you’re on to something MC…
I took a look at aerial imagery on 6 days dating back to 2019 to 2021. There is definitely movement of the busses. Albeit not all of them. One thing to note is that we are still in this pandemic and bus utilization is still way down. While school might be in for many areas, field trips are not happening. This issue does seem to be overblown at a minimum.