Ashland School District's $46.8 million bond will provide funding to rebuild an elementary school, continue high school improvements (including completion of a visual and performing arts complex) and tend to necessary upgrades.

Ashland began long-range planning in 1996 with a 50-year facilities plan that called for bonds every 10 years. The first bond, in '96, was successful, but changes in the community - including school enrollment that has declined about 15 percent a year since 2000 - called for more study and significant community involvement this time around.

Dull Olson Weekes Architects completed a facilities study for the district in June 2005. That 263-page report was used by a bond committee of about 20 community members supported by district staff.

"Those committee members represented a good cross-section of the community and included some people who worked on the '96 bond campaign," said Superintendent Juli Di Chiro. They gathered information from a wide variety of sources, including a 10-year demographer's report prepared by PSU's Judy Barmack, the Facilities and Capacity Assessment Report presented in August 2005, and a concurrent high school master-planning project. A Nelson Report gave committee members an idea of options the community might support and those it wouldn't.

The high school master-plan project was essential for drafting a high-school campus and guided the bond committee's focus in this election, Di Chiro said. It also gave voters more opportunities to voice opinions about what their schools should look like.

The bond committee studied district buildings, listened to presentations on "green schools" by the Oregon Department of Energy, and reviewed surveys of students and staff.

"The kids reinforced what we already knew about the facilities, especially the high school," Di Chiro said. "It's hard when the temperature is 85 degrees in one classroom and the next room is in the 50s."

Offering options

Community forums in January and February allowed for additional discussion of priorities. The committee presented the community with three options:

• Building repairs but no new construction
• Limited new construction and some repairs
• Accept all of the architect's recommendations and do it all-with a ticket of $85 million

"Many people were against just putting a Band-Aid on the problems and doing repairs only," Di Chiro said, "but we felt $85 million was too much to ask for, especially since the last campaign promised an ongoing bond rate of $2 per $1,000 of assessed value. The committee felt strongly that it should keep the promises of the past campaign to maintain credibility with voters. We took a middle approach that included a little new construction but maintained the cost to taxpayers at the level approved in `96."

In April the district hosted an open house to present bond options and collect feedback. The board adopted the bond recommendations June 12, and the campaign began the next day.

Ashland's campaign committee, made up of about six people who were dedicated and willing to work hard toward a successful bond passage, included a board member who is a professional campaign consultant.

The campaign concentrated on positive and undecided voters, Di Chiro said. "We made no effort to change the minds of negative voters."

In September the committee began calling to identify `yes' votes. Committee members analyzed voter records and voting patterns. That exclusive focus on `yes' voters proved successful.

Nearly 250 volunteers assisted the core committee, selectively canvassing door to door, airing a 30-second television ad on local cable networks, mailing fliers to all voters in the district, and making a PowerPoint presentation to 25 service clubs and community organizations. Volunteers also conducted a thorough get-out-the-vote effort to ensure that supporters returned their ballots.

Confronting concerns

"This was the first time in Ashland in recent memory that we had active opposition to a school bond or levy," Di Chiro said, indicating that the opposition arose from hurt feelings over some earlier school closures.

"People wanted to know why we would close schools, then ask for money for new ones," Di Chiro said.

The combination of declining enrollment and unsafe old buildings caused confusion, so providing the facts was critical, she said.

"We had to explain that parts of schools that we are rebuilding are a hundred years old. We weren't building because we need the space, but because the schools weren't functioning well for our students' education."

Di Chiro notes that although the district's preference was to keep on the original schedule of going for a bond every 10 years, the district had stretched it to 12 years to keep the rate below $2 per $1,000 assessed value.

The superintendent explained their success: "Two words: hard work!"

Thorough planning that involved listening and responding to community concerns and making modest requests for money and changes contributed to the campaign's success, Di Chiro said.