Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litter Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cyclist urges using Connecticut 'nickel‑nip' funds for roadside cleanup
Summary
Bradley, an Open Space Commission chair and committee member, asked the Old Lyme road-safety group to use proceeds from Connecticut’s 5-cent tobacco surcharge (‘nickel‑nip’) to pay for cleaning road shoulders and glass removal; he provided local counts of litter and asked to coordinate with the town recycling coordinator.
At the committee’s request period, Bradley described persistent roadside litter that poses safety risks to cyclists and pedestrians and proposed using proceeds from Connecticut’s ‘nickel‑nip’ surcharge (a small per-unit fee on certain tobacco sales) for cleanup and environmental work.
Bradley told the committee he had counted 97 pieces of trash between Vinnie Road and Saunders Hollow on one route and reported that the nickel‑nip program generated $7,845 in Old Lyme in 2025. He said the program’s proceeds are intended for environmental or cleanup purposes and suggested the road-safety committee coordinate with Rachel Peterson, the town’s recycling/waste coordinator, about using funds for targeted cleanup where cyclists and pedestrians are at risk.
Why it matters: Bradley argued that roadside debris — especially broken glass — creates an immediate safety hazard for cyclists who must swerve into traffic to avoid sharp objects. He framed the funding proposal as a local, programmatic use of a state-mandated surcharge already designated for environmental purposes.
Committee response and next steps: Members asked Bradley to meet with Rachel Peterson and the waste-and-recycling committee to confirm whether funds are available for street cleanup and how the funds are currently allocated. The committee did not adopt a formal motion but directed Bradley and interested members to follow up with the town recycling coordinator and to report back at a future meeting.
Notes on numbers: Bradley provided a local litter count and a 2025 revenue figure from the nickel‑nip program; he did not present a full accounting of how prior proceeds have been spent and the committee flagged follow-up with the waste/recycling coordinator to verify available funding.
