Al Clayton Campaign, 2352 Sandgate rd, Arlington, VT (2026)

08/06/2026

Stopping in at the town office for early voting for primaries, tax bills were ready to send so they gave me mine. 2 things to chat about here:

1 I have heard discussion on taxing second homes at a higher rate or an additional tax.
I don’t believe this is a good idea for these reasons:

A lot of self-employed people service these homes and could cause loss of work. ( maintenance people, landscapers, lawn care, house cleaners, and other such middle class income earners.

This may cause a sell off with high prices that working class people generally could not purchase.

This may cause more of a lull in sales tax and hurt the tourism industry causing further harm.

I’m not an economist however I’m not anywhere near convinced this is a positive move. I totally agree we need more revenue, we need to cut spending in ways that make sense, and we need to grow VTs base.

Register and vote your voice matters.

08/01/2026

I can see what I’m proposing fitting into this.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18xci5FpjJ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

08/01/2026

After a bit of research it’s just the correct course of action. I would introduce or support this type of Legislation.
It may be a small step in making Vermont a little bit more affordable for our aging population. The money would generally be spent locally as well and have a positive impact on local markets.

H. ___
2027 Session
Introduced by Representative Alford Clayton of Bennington-4
AN ACT RELATING TO THE FULL EXEMPTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FROM VERMONT PERSONAL INCOME TAX
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) As of 2026, 42 states and the District of Columbia fully exempt Social Security benefits from state income taxation. Only eight states, including Vermont, continue to tax any portion of these benefits.
(2) Vermont currently provides a partial, income-based exemption for federally taxable Social Security benefits under 32 V.S.A. § 5830e. Single filers with federal adjusted gross income (AGI) of $55,000 or less and joint filers with AGI of $70,000 or less receive a full exemption; the exemption phases out over the next $10,000 of AGI and is unavailable above those thresholds.
(3) In tax year 2024, Vermont collected approximately $61.5 million in personal income tax revenue attributable to Social Security benefits (approximately $59.7 million from resident returns). Roughly half of the tax returns reporting Social Security benefits paid no state tax on those benefits due to the existing exemption; among those who did pay, the average tax was approximately $1,327 per return.
(4) In 2023, approximately 162,000 Vermont residents received a total of $3.4 billion in Social Security benefits. These payments supported nearly 20,000 jobs, $1.1 billion in wages and salaries, $3.6 billion in total economic output, and hundreds of millions of dollars in combined federal, state, and local tax revenues within the State.
(5) Vermont has an aging population. Fully exempting Social Security benefits would increase disposable income for retirees and disabled Vermonters, strengthen local economic activity through increased spending, improve the State’s competitiveness relative to the 42 states that already provide a full exemption, and help retain residents who might otherwise relocate to more tax-friendly states for retirement.
(6) The purpose of this act is to fully exempt all federally taxable Social Security benefits from Vermont personal income tax, aligning Vermont with the majority of states, providing meaningful tax relief to older and disabled Vermonters, and supporting the State’s aging communities and local economies.
Sec. 2. 32 V.S.A. § 5830e is amended to read:
§ 5830e. Retirement income; Social Security income
(a) Social Security income. The portion of All federally taxable Social Security benefits excluded from taxable income under subdivision 5811(21)(B)(iv) of this chapter shall be as follows: received under the federal Social Security Act shall be excluded from taxable income under subdivision 5811(21)(B)(iv) of this chapter, regardless of the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income or filing status.
(1) For taxpayers whose filing status is single, married filing separately, head of household, or surviving spouse:
(A) If the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is less than or equal to $55,000.00, all federally taxable benefits received under the federal Social Security Act shall be excluded.
(B) If the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is greater than $55,000.00 but less than $65,000.00, the percentage of federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act to be excluded shall be proportional to the amount of the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income over $55,000.00, determined by:
(i) subtracting the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer from $65,000.00;
(ii) dividing the value under subdivision (i) of this subdivision (B) by $10,000.00; and
(iii) multiplying the value under subdivision (ii) of this subdivision (B) by the federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act.
(C) If the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is equal to or greater than $65,000.00, no amount of the federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act shall be excluded under this section.
(2) For taxpayers whose filing status is married filing jointly:
(A) If the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is less than or equal to $70,000.00, all federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act shall be excluded.
(B) If the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is greater than $70,000.00 but less than $80,000.00, the percentage of federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act to be excluded shall be proportional to the amount of the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income over $70,000.00, determined by:
(i) subtracting the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer from $80,000.00;
(ii) dividing the value under subdivision (i) of this subdivision (B) by $10,000.00; and
(iii) multiplying the value under subdivision (ii) of this subdivision (B) by the federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act.
(C) If the federal adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is equal to or greater than $80,000.00, no amount of the federally taxable benefits received under the Social Security Act shall be excluded under this section.
(b)–(e) [Existing subsections concerning Civil Service Retirement System income, military retirement income, and other retirement income remain unchanged and continue in effect.]
Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall take effect on January 1, 2028, and shall apply to taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2028.

07/31/2026

Getting ready to slide one more thing off my plate to free up time to campaign.
My Wife is opening a medical scrub shop to support local medical professionals acquire their outfits and accessories.
I’m still out talking to Vermonters and listening to their needs. Locals express how policies have negatively affected their livelihood.
Send me to Montpelier to support changes. Vermont needs to grow, Vermonters need opportunities.

Check out my page & posts,

checkout my website :
electalclayton.com

Register and vote 🫵 matter.

07/26/2026

Hot topic with Finch pulp mill. I have not come up with a short term stop gap yet.
Midterm fix for some would be Bio mass boilers.

Presentation to the Vermont General Assembly
Integrating the Finch Paper Pulp Mill Closure with Biomass Power Development
Delivered by Alford “Al” Clayton
Candidate for Vermont House of Representatives, Bennington-4 District
(Arlington, Manchester, Sandgate, and Sunderland)

To the Governor, Senators, and General Assembly:
sustainable biomass boilers for power generation deliver a substantially lower lifecycle carbon footprint than coal—typically a median of about 230 g CO₂eq/kWh versus 820 g CO₂eq/kWh for pulverized-coal plants, according to IPCC-harmonized assessments. When feedstock is residual or low-grade wood managed under Vermont’s existing sustainability standards, the biogenic carbon cycle keeps net emissions far lower than fossil alternatives.

Today that opportunity has become urgent. On or about July 17, 2026, Finch Paper announced it will cease pulp production at its Glens Falls, New York mill and transition entirely to purchased market pulp. This ends a major regional market that has absorbed low-grade pulpwood—including nearly 2,000 tons of Vermont roundwood per week—and historically handled 50–80 truckloads per day (roughly 20,000 loads annually) of material that has no ready alternative buyer for certain grades such as low-grade hemlock.
Governor Scott has correctly called the impact “tremendous” on loggers, truckers, landowners, and forest health. Without markets for the low-grade stems that come out of every sustainable harvest, the economics of proper forest management collapse, thinning declines, and long-term resilience suffers—especially in western Vermont communities that supply the mill.
This is not merely a loss. It is a ready feedstock stream that can be redirected into biomass power generation—exactly the lower-carbon pathway I outlined.

A new or expanded biomass facility sized to absorb a meaningful portion of that volume would:
• Restore markets for low-grade wood and keep loggers working.

• Support the forest management that keeps Vermont’s working landscape healthy and climate-resilient.

• Deliver dispatchable renewable electricity with a proven carbon advantage over coal or higher-carbon imports.

• Create local jobs in construction, operations, and the supply chain.

Realistic Cost and Timeline to Install a Biomass Power Generator and Reach Commercial Operation
Capital costs for biomass power plants in the United States typically range from $2,000 to $4,500 per kilowatt of installed capacity (recent averages near $2,500–$3,500/kW for conventional systems; modular/gasification packages can be lower on a turnkey basis for smaller units).
Illustrative scales relevant to the Finch volume:

• 1 MW modular/skid-mounted unit: $1.2–2.5 million total turnkey.

• 5–10 MW plant: roughly $10–40 million.

• 20 MW plant: $40–90 million.

• 50 MW utility-scale plant (comparable to McNeil): $100–200+ million (higher if combined-heat-and-power or advanced emissions controls are included).

These figures cover equipment (boiler or gasifier, turbine/generator, fuel handling), balance-of-plant, interconnection, and typical contingencies; site-specific factors (land, civil works, grid upgrades) and Vermont labor/material costs can push totals higher. Ongoing fuel costs would be offset by the newly available low-grade wood that currently has limited markets. Payback periods under favorable power-purchase agreements and renewable incentives often fall in the 5–12 year range once operational.
Timeline from decision to online (Vermont-specific):

1. Pre-development and 45-day advance notice under Section 248 (Public Utility Commission Certificate of Public Good): 1–3 months.

2. Full Section 248 permitting (petition, discovery, hearings, decision), plus air permits and any Act 250 overlap: typically 6–18 months (can stretch longer with contested issues around emissions or forest sustainability). Vermont’s criteria already require highest commercially available efficiency and compliance with harvesting standards that protect long-term forest health—exactly the safeguards needed.

3. Engineering, procurement, and construction:

• Traditional plant: 12–24 months from groundbreaking.

• Modular/skid-mounted systems: on-site installation and commissioning can be as short as 7–15 days once equipment arrives, compressing the physical build dramatically.

4. Overall to commercial operation: 2–4 years for a mid-size conventional plant; potentially 12–24 months for smaller modular projects if permitting moves efficiently and interconnection is straightforward.
Existing Vermont facilities (McNeil ~50 MW, Ryegate ~20 MW) demonstrate that biomass can operate successfully under our regulatory framework. Co-location near existing wood-handling infrastructure or industrial sites, or expansion of current plants, would further shorten timelines and reduce costs.

Recommendation

I urge the General Assembly, the Public Utility Commission, the Agency of Natural Resources, and the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation to treat the Finch closure as a catalyst. Direct the administration to accelerate feasibility studies, streamline permitting for projects that meet strict sustainability and efficiency criteria, explore state or federal financing tools, and work with utilities on offtake agreements. Prioritize residual and low-grade wood so we do not compete with higher-value markets.

This is common-sense Vermont policy:

turn a sudden market loss into local jobs, healthier forests, reliable power, and measurable carbon reductions. Biomass done right is better for the climate than coal and better for our rural economy than letting low-grade wood rot or go unharvested.

I stand ready to work with any member on legislation or oversight that makes this happen quickly and responsibly for the people of Bennington-4 and all of Vermont.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Alford “Al” Clayton
Arlington, Vermont

07/25/2026

There are few places if any in VT you would not see trees. Maybe in down town Burlington or possibly lake Champlain on a foggy morning.

I understand the zeal for conservation however the cost makes no relevant common sense. Act 59 needs to be repealed. Here is a work of Legislation I’d like to introduce or vote for. I used AI to help me craft this work.

Repealing Vermont Act 59
Candidate for State Representative
Members of the General Assembly, colleagues, and fellow Vermonters:

My name is Alford Clayton, and I am a candidate for State Representative in Bennington 4. I appear before you today to urge the full repeal of Act 59, the Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Act of 2023.

Act 59 sets binding statewide goals of permanently conserving 30 percent of Vermont’s land by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050. It requires the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, working with the Agency of Natural Resources, to inventory conserved lands and produce a comprehensive conservation plan.

While the intentions behind the law may have been well-meaning, the statute is unnecessary, duplicative of existing successful programs, and carries real costs for taxpayers, rural communities, and the limited pool of developable land in our state.
Vermont is already one of the most forested states in the lower 48. Approximately 78 percent of our land—roughly 4.5 to 4.6 million acres—is forest. This figure has remained remarkably stable for decades. Most of that forest is privately owned and actively managed by Vermonters who care deeply about the land.
In addition, more than 2.5 million acres—over 40 percent of the entire state—are already enrolled in Vermont’s Use Value Appraisal (Current Use) program. Under Current Use, landowners commit to long-term agricultural or forest management plans in exchange for taxation based on use value rather than development value.
Withdrawal triggers a significant land-use-change tax. This voluntary program is the single largest land-stewardship mechanism in Vermont and has kept working forests and farms productive for generations.
Under Act 59’s stricter definition of “permanent” conservation, the state already reports approximately 27 percent of Vermont permanently protected. The remaining gap to 30 percent is modest. The leap to 50 percent by 2050 would place nearly half the state under permanent restrictions. Given that nearly four-fifths of Vermont is already forest and more than two-fifths is already under formal stewardship agreements, additional rigid percentage mandates are simply not required.

Vermont has limited “billable” land relative to its total area—land that generates full property-tax revenue and can support housing, farms, small businesses, and rural economic activity. Permanent conservation often removes or sharply reduces property from the grand list. Property taxes fund our schools and municipal services. Further reductions shift the burden onto remaining homeowners and businesses or force higher rates. At a time when Vermont faces a genuine housing shortage and affordability challenges, locking additional large percentages of land into non-development status makes the problem worse.

Rural economies depend on working forests, agriculture, modest housing growth, and local decision-making. Act 59 centralizes planning with state agencies and large conservation organizations. It undervalues the private landowners who already steward the majority of our forests through voluntary tools that work.
I am not opposed to conservation. I support willing-seller easements, targeted public acquisitions where they make sense, strong forest-management standards, and the continued success of Current Use. These approaches protect our natural heritage while respecting property rights, keeping working lands productive, and preserving the tax base.

What I oppose is a top-down, percentage-driven statute that treats Vermont’s already heavily forested landscape as if it were starting from a blank slate. Act 59 is unnecessary. Existing voluntary programs already deliver the ecological, recreational, and climate benefits the law seeks, without the economic and practical drawbacks of permanent statewide targets.

I therefore ask this Legislature to repeal Act 59 in its entirety. Return conservation policy to the successful, voluntary, and locally grounded tools that match the reality of Vermont’s landscape—78 percent forest and a limited supply of fully taxable, developable land.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome your questions and look forward to working with all of you on practical solutions that serve every Vermonter.
Respectfully submitted,
Alford Clayton
Candidate for State Representative
Bennington 4

07/24/2026

Getting serious and legislation that will make a positive impact.

Act 250 seems to be the glowing show stopper for growth in Vermont and IMHO. Money or the lack there of has us all struggling to survive with less. Below is a beginning of a PC of legislation to turn our financial direction around. I would not clam it a final work more the beginning for a more vibrant economy in Vermont.

To the readers AI helped me pull this together using know resources from the state of Vermont and my desire to work with current laws and regs.

**Proposal for Vermont Legislators, Senators & Governor**

**Vermont Economic Vitality and Environmental Harmony Act (VEVEHA)**

**A 2026 Legislative Package to Grow Jobs, Attract Families, and Protect Our Environment**

**Executive Summary**
Vermont is shrinking fastest in the nation (–0.3% population loss in 2025) while facing a severe housing shortage (only ~2,650 units permitted yearly vs. 7,500+ needed). Act 250 and Act 181 already protect our natural resources through a new tiered system (Tier 1 compact growth, Tier 3 strict protection). VEVEHA builds directly on Act 181 by adding targeted, time-limited fast-tracks for seven key sectors—without weakening any of the 10 core Act 250 criteria. Growth stays in already-developed areas (Tier 1 ~2–3% of land), creates family-wage jobs, adds workforce housing, and requires net environmental gains.

**Goal:**
• 5% sector growth in 2 years
• 15% growth in 10 years
• Reverse out-migration by attracting working families who can afford to stay and thrive

**Core Changes to Act 181 & Act 250 (via LURB rulemaking & simple statutory tweaks)**
1. Expand Tier 1A/B and Tier 2 “enhancement zones” to all listed sectors.
2. 45-day fast-track approvals + limited exemptions (

07/23/2026

Getting back from vacation with the family . We got unpacked, laundry and checked back in at work.
Now to fire up the campaign;
Why run for state rep, we need to change direction. For far to long the State of Vermont has made to many left turns driving down a road of financial crisis. We need to change directions, creat opportunities to grow VT.
All bench marks for VT show losses:
Student out comes are down

The value of income is down

Housing is high cost

Medical is high cost

Taxes are through the roof

Electric is getting expensive

Heating fuels are expensive

The only thing down is personal income to meet all the taxes.

Vote for common sense

Vote for change

Vote for Al Clayton

Now is the time for change

07/04/2026

Congratulations my fellow Americans. Despite differences we may have we have chosen the recognition of our inalienable rights as humans beings to be citizens in America.
As we celebrate let us remember why. The people who choose this fate we have inherited. They lived in a time we would not recognize, carriage wagons, horses, the majority of people lived off the land. No insulation in walls, it was not uncommon for a number of children in a household not to survive.
Communication was mail on horseback or word of mouth. Hand cut hay, vegetables, root cellars, firewood, live stock and hope. No cell phones, indoor plumbing, climate controlled housing, or on demand anything. People assembled as needed, waste was ungodly.
To my ancestors 🙏 May it never be forgotten.

Descendant of a Revolutionary Veteran Jonathan Clayton

06/30/2026

I picked up my first batch of signs today.
I’m about making common sense decisions prioritizing growing VT.
IMO we need change in regulations to spur on growth, create better opportunities for people to not just survive living in VT yet to thrive.
I’m all for a clean and resilient VT at a pace that makes sense. Regulations have over burdened our population that where not asked for by the majority of Vermonters.
Change needs to happen.

Al Clayton Campaign

08/06/2026

08/01/2026

08/01/2026

07/31/2026

07/26/2026

07/25/2026

07/24/2026

07/23/2026

07/04/2026

06/30/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request