BVSD board reviews athletic, activity fees amid equity concerns and wide school-by-school variation

The Boulder Valley School District Board of Education met Feb. 25 for a work session focused on athletics and activity fees, hearing staff explain how district and school-level charges affect participation and equity.

Superintendent Dr. Anderson opened the presentation and introduced Kathleen Sullivan, the district’s legal counsel, and Harry Waterman, the district athletic director, who delivered the fee survey and answered board questions.

Sullivan told the board state law permits districts to collect voluntary participation fees for school-sponsored activities when the fees are “reasonably necessary and related to the cost for which they’re being assigned” and that fees must be used only for the specified purpose and disclosed publicly. She said the board’s earlier 2023 update to policy JN on academic and curricular fees used similar legal principles and included caps and ranges for fees.

“We will look forward to sharing more data in this area with the board at a future meeting,” Kathleen Sullivan said, noting Title IX requirements relate to equitable athletic opportunity but do not prescribe what fees may be charged.

Harry Waterman said the district’s standard high school participation fee is $200 and noted middle schools charge $100 for interscholastic participation. He presented a districtwide inventory showing 40 athletics/activities at the high-school level; 26 are CHASA-designated sports, each assessed the $200 participation fee, while other activities are handled differently and often do not carry the $200 charge.

Waterman and board members described wide variation in additional, team-level fees that families pay on top of the district participation fee — items such as warm-up gear, choreography, camps and travel. Waterman said some team fees are small and remain with the student; others can grow substantially for teams that travel to national competitions. He also explained booster fundraising offsets some costs at some schools.

Board members pressed staff on the large disparities between schools. Board member Jason asked why, for example, basketball fees at one school could be near zero while at another they approach thousands; Waterman and Dr. Anderson said program size, off‑season training expectations, fundraising activity and local booster involvement drive much of the difference.

The presentation said participation fees cover about 25% of the district’s athletics budget; the district funds the remaining 75% through gate revenues and transfers from the general operating fund. Staff noted total athletics expenditures in the budget are roughly $4.1 million and participation fees bring in approximately $1 million in a typical year; transfers from the district general fund were shown as roughly $2.8 million in the draft budget discussion.

Board members repeatedly raised equity concerns. Several said they want clearer data on who requests waivers, how many waiver recipients are free‑and‑reduced‑lunch (FRL) students versus others, and whether racial/ethnic disparities exist in participation. Board member Alex asked for analyses that would compare participation and FRL status for low‑cost activities that do not charge fees, to help identify whether cost is the main barrier.

Waterman said waivers are available: the $200 participation fee is waived for FRL students and for any family that communicates financial need; schools grant waivers “no questions asked,” he said, and fundraising or booster funds are sometimes used to cover additional in‑season costs. He added that staff did not, at the time of the presentation, track whether waivers were granted to FRL‑eligible families versus others, but that they could collect that detail going forward.

Board members asked about middle‑school fees and communication. Waterman said middle‑school interscholastic participation is $100 per season, that there are no routine additional fees at middle schools, and that the waiver policy extends to middle school fees. Several members urged stronger communication so families know fee waivers are available without income verification.

The board also discussed no‑cut team policies. Waterman said an earlier OCR investigation prompted the district to require three girls’ teams (one per season) be run as no‑cut teams — volleyball (fall), girls’ basketball (winter) and girls’ soccer (spring) — to increase female participation. Board members asked staff to clarify which activities and sports are counted in Title IX analyses and how CHASA designations intersect with fees and participation.

Members suggested policy options the board could consider, including: standardizing or capping certain fees, setting family maximums (the district currently has a $500 annual family cap on participation fees), tracking and reporting waiver requests with FRL status where families consent, and exploring districtwide procurement or sponsorship agreements to lower uniform and gear costs. Staff said they had previously used vendor contracts on new-school startups and that districtwide agreements can produce discounts but require time to implement.

Dr. Anderson said the board’s policy direction from the work session would guide revisions to activity and athletic fee policy and that staff would return with more detailed policy drafts and additional data on waiver demographics and participation trends.

Why it matters: Board members said the issue affects access to extracurriculars that contribute to student engagement and well‑being. Members emphasized the board’s equity goals and asked staff to propose policy language and operational steps that preserve program quality while reducing financial barriers.

What’s next: Staff committed to collecting additional demographic and program‑level data, clarifying how Title IX and CHASA classifications are being applied in the district’s analysis, and returning with a policy draft for board review.

Speakers quoted in this report spoke at the Feb. 25 meeting; their remarks are drawn from the meeting transcript.