Revenue Sharing: Balancing District Priorities with School Incentives

One of the liveliest discussions at Facilitron University centered on revenue sharing—whether and how districts allocate rental revenue back to individual schools. This topic highlighted the diverse approaches districts take to balance district-wide goals with incentivizing site-level participation in facility use programs. From full revenue retention to shared splits, panelists shared creative solutions and candid challenges.

Districts vary widely in their revenue sharing practices, with models ranging from centralized control to site-based distribution. For some districts, providing schools with a share of the revenue fosters buy-in and encourages site administrators and staff to embrace community use of their facilities.

Van Chu (Anaheim Union High School District, CA) shared how her district’s revenue-sharing model incentivizes participation: "We split 25% of rental revenue with schools, and we break it down further by type—athletic facilities revenue goes to the athletics department, while classroom or theater rentals go to the principal’s discretionary fund. This approach ensures that both principals and coaches see direct benefits, which makes them more open to approving rentals."

We split 25% of rental revenue with schools, and we break it down further by type—athletic facilities revenue goes to the athletics department, while classroom or theater rentals go to the principal’s discretionary fund. This approach ensures that both principals and coaches see direct benefits, which makes them more open to approving rentals.

Van Chu
Anaheim Union High School District

This model demonstrates the value of aligning incentives with site-level needs, reducing resistance to community rentals.

2. Centralized Retention: Funding District-Wide Priorities

Not all districts share revenue directly with schools. Some choose to retain funds at the district level to address broader priorities, such as capital improvements or funding under-resourced sites. While this approach can create friction, it ensures resources are distributed equitably based on need rather than localized revenue generation.

Genyne Vinson (Fort Bend ISD, TX) explained her district’s centralized approach: "We don’t do revenue sharing with campuses. Instead, we focus on district-wide priorities, like funding special projects. Recently, we used rental revenue to purchase digital scoreboards for athletics. This way, all schools benefit from the program, even if they don’t generate significant rental income themselves."

We don’t do revenue sharing with campuses. Instead, we focus on district-wide priorities, like funding special projects. Recently, we used rental revenue to purchase digital scoreboards for athletics. This way, all schools benefit from the program, even if they don’t generate significant rental income themselves.

Genyne Vinson
Fort Bend ISD

This approach reflects a commitment to equity and ensures that district-wide goals take precedence over individual site preferences.

3. Challenges and Creative Solutions

Panelists also addressed the challenges of balancing these models. For example, retaining revenue at the district level can lead to site administrators feeling disengaged or unmotivated to participate in rental programs. Conversely, overly generous site-level splits may leave districts underfunded for operational costs, such as utilities and maintenance.

Tracey Tincknell (San Diego Unified, CA) shared how her district shifted its approach during budget constraints: "Previously, schools kept 100% of rental funds after a small administrative fee. But with rising costs and budget deficits, we transitioned to a 50% split. While it was initially unpopular, clear communication about the financial realities helped schools understand the need for change. Now, principals are still eager to see their share of the funds."

Previously, schools kept 100% of rental funds after a small administrative fee. But with rising costs and budget deficits, we transitioned to a 50% split. While it was initially unpopular, clear communication about the financial realities helped schools understand the need for change. Now, principals are still eager to see their share of the funds.

Tracey Tincknell
San Diego Unified

Such adjustments highlight the importance of transparency and data in navigating difficult transitions.

Key Questions for District Leaders

This lively discussion raised important considerations for districts:

How can revenue-sharing models incentivize participation without compromising district-wide goals?
What percentage split, if any, strikes the right balance between site-level and central priorities?
How can districts ensure transparency and fairness in the allocation of rental revenue?

The discussion on revenue sharing underscored that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Each district must weigh its unique goals, financial needs, and cultural dynamics to find a model that works. What’s clear is that transparency, communication, and alignment with strategic priorities are key to success—whether the approach is centralized, shared, or something in between.

Facilitron’s platform simplifies the process, offering detailed tracking of revenue, labor costs, and utilization to support districts in making informed decisions. By fostering collaboration and data-driven discussions, districts can find solutions that balance incentives with sustainability.

How does your district approach revenue sharing? What’s worked—and what hasn’t?

News & Updates