I would like to thank the many residents whom I have met along the way, particularly those whom were in the middle of something important when I dropped by. The feedback and insights I have gleaned from these visits has been invaluable, and will help shape my approach to representing our district, should I be elected.

Throughout this journey, I have heard a wide variety of concerns, challenges, and ideas. These issues generally fall within three broad categories – taxes, economic development, and education. As the election cycle comes to a close, I would like to summarize my thinking on these key issues.

For starters, I think we all agree that our education property tax system needs work. Act 60 and Act 68 are not going to be repealed any time soon, nor will there be any magic potions or slick-sounding gimmicks that will solve this problem – thinking that way would be naive. But my experience as a CPA, a lister and former school board member has convinced me that some technical changes to the law – like amending the way the CLA is calculated – could have a significant impact in reducing education property taxes in our towns. I know how those fixes should work and I will lead the charge to make this effort a priority.

There is no question that we need to build a better, stronger, and more diversified economy in our region. Many people I have spoken with are working part-time, or working multiple jobs to make ends meet – a story that our state’s unemployment figures don’t tell. And a number of local small businesses are still struggling to regain their footing after Tropical Storm Irene. We need to tackle the issue of how Vermont manages economic development in centives. Many of the current programs are overly complex and out of scale for the kind of small businesses that we have in our region. The time has come to start looking at incentive programs that are accessible and better aligned to the needs of small businesses, such as those that are the backbone of our local economy. This is something that I would advocate for as your next state representative.

In addition to economic development incentives, we need to look at ways to boost the state’s marketing investment in our region. Recognizing that more populous regions of the state have intrinsic benefits that give them an economic advantage (like density of resources), I will fight for a bigger share of marketing investment that the state spends to promote Vermont as a travel destination.

Beyond these immediate objectives, I believe that we also need to be thinking long-term about shoring up our economic foundation, which starts by making higher education more affordable and more accessible to those who live in more rural areas of the state. Business leaders and economic development experts agree that availability of quality post-secondary education is a key enabler of any vibrant economy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to expand college campuses. With increasing availability of broadband Internet, we can use technology to make educational opportunities more widely available across our state – at a lower cost – something I will push for.

Speaking of broadband, this is something that we should view as a critical component of our state’s economic infrastructure – just as roads and bridges define our transportation infrastructure. We need to continue to build on the efforts underway to deploy middle-mile and last-mile Internet access to rural areas of Vermont – but do so in a manner that ensures continued investment and upgrades of this important economic infrastructure to ensure that we don’t fall behind.

If elected, I will bring a unique and meaningful combination of experience and resources to representing our district. I’m born and bred on a Weston dairy farm; a veteran of Vietnam; and a CPA with many years of experience as a Lister, Planning Commission member, school board member and regional planning representative.

I care deeply about what happens to our area – I’ve put my time and talents to work in that service. As an independent, I’m proud to have earned the support of Republican, Independent, and Democratic legislators, but most importantly, I hope to earn YOUR support and your vote next Tuesday, Nov. 6.

Incidentally, on Election Day, I pledge to honor a time-honored tradition in our district of allowing the voters to cast their ballots in peace. That means you won’t find me (or anyone working on my behalf) campaigning outside the polls.

Just as this is a big issue for many property owners in our area, I can assure you that it is one of my biggest priorities as a candidate to be the next State Representative for our area.

Not very many people I know take much pleasure in paying them, but property taxes are the major source of revenue for a pretty important function in society – the education of our children. The problem is that Vermont’s education finance formula, Act 60/68, has become overly dependent on the property tax as a funding source.

Equalized Pupils, Phantom Students, Excess Spending, CLA, and COD: these terms probably don’t mean much to most taxpayers, but as a Lister and former school board member, I have become all too familiar with the intricate details of this convoluted education funding formula.

While I would love to see Act 60/68 repealed, the reality is that this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Last year the Legislature spent $200,000 on a study that more or less concluded that Act 60/68 was working. Earlier this year, the Governor declared that the old battles over education funding were over. There simply is not the political will in Montpelier to tackle wholesale reform anytime soon.

As a candidate for state representative, I could easily promise major change to our education funding laws, but I won’t do that. We already have a filing cabinet full of alternatives that could be considered, but never seem to make it to front burner. In my view, a smarter, and more realistic approach, is to focus on ways to tackle some of the hidden tax increases that have slipped through the net of the tangled, complex web of education finance laws.

For example, under a formula established under Act 68, the state’s General Fund is supposed to contribute a set amount of money to the Education Fund, with annual inflationary increases. But, in recent years, that transfer was reduced – leaving property taxpayers to make up the difference. At the same time, other demands have been placed on the Education Fund, which are not directly related to K-12 education (prisoner education, for example). These subtle changes are hard to spot, and are often buried in the detail, but they add up to significant dollars on our property tax bills.

While several local legislators have been successful in highlighting these stealth tax increases over the past few years, more work needs to be done to raise awareness and address this growing problem.

For starters, we need to work to ensure that the state restores the General Fund transfer back to the levels set forth under the original Act 68 formula – which would bring an additional $27M into the Education Fund, which would allow for a reduction to the statewide property tax rate by about 2.5 cents. Earlier this year, the legislature set up a system that would use future General Fund budget surpluses to restore this transfer, but this mechanism will sunset in a few years. We should eliminate the sunset until such time as the Education Fund is made whole again.

While we need to correct for past transgressions, it is important that we pay close attention and do more to stop these increases before they come into effect. That requires a detailed understanding of the funding formula and the accounting skills to identify and highlight these “raids” on the Education Fund. As someone with the requisite knowledge and skills, this is a challenge that I look forward to taking on.