BVSD board studies updating sponsorship, advertising policy to expand district revenue

The Boulder Valley School District Board of Education spent the bulk of its meeting discussing a potential rewrite of board policy KHB to allow more active solicitation of sponsorships and advertising to generate revenue for district programs.

Board members and staff framed the review as a response to tight school budgets and a desire to reinvest any new revenue into student programs. Kathleen Sullivan, who presented the review for staff, said the district’s current sponsorship policy dates back decades and that neighboring districts use a wider set of approaches. "Our current policy defines a sponsorship agreement ... as a company that pays a premium or provides some economic benefit to the district in exchange for recognition," Sullivan said during the presentation.

Why it matters: board members were explicit that sponsorships could fund extracurriculars, facility upgrades and program expansion but also warned about equity and reputational risk. Superintendent Dr. Anderson said a more active sponsorship program could be substantial: "I'd estimate there's more than a million dollars on the table, depending upon how aggressive we get and how willing we are to promote advertising," he said.

Board members pressed staff for guardrails and for clarity about what is handled at the school level versus districtwide. Jason asked for specifics about current practice at schools: "Are those entirely decisions made by Centaurus and their athletic programs? Is it entirely school by school at this point? Does the district have any oversight?" That question underscored repeated comments that booster clubs and individual schools currently pursue banners, signs and local sponsorships with little centralized valuation or oversight.

Concerns and safeguards: Board member Kitty framed the effort reluctantly: "It's a sad comment on how our society values education that we have to go looking for sponsors to help fund basic education of our children. But unfortunately, we do." Other trustees emphasized limiting commercialization, protecting naming opportunities for individuals and ensuring districtwide equity so that wealthier schools do not capture all the benefits.

What kinds of sponsorships were discussed: presenters and trustees listed examples used by other Colorado districts, including stadium and gymnasium scoreboards, naming rights for high‑value assets, outside bus advertising, digital advertising and corporate partnerships that could include career and technical education connections. Staff noted Colorado allows advertising on the exterior of school buses but not inside. Kathleen Sullivan pointed to policies in Cherry Creek, St. Vrain and Thompson as examples of districts that actively solicit revenue.

Next steps: Dr. Anderson recommended parallel work: refine draft policy language while staff researches asset valuations and front‑range district practices, and reach out to national networks for best practices. Multiple trustees said they prefer a principles‑based policy with operational details handled in district regulations or procedures and reserved final approvals for the board or superintendent depending on the size and type of contract.

Board members did not take a formal vote on a policy change at this meeting. Instead, the board asked staff to gather more information on high‑value assets, possible revenue models (including in‑house versus third‑party solicitation), and equity protections before returning with a policy recommendation.