At the workshop staff presented a 10‑year education planning number of $225,000,000 and described an average $5,000,000 annual increase in contributions to the school system. Participants used that framing to discuss operations, capital needs and how to prioritize limited funds.

Speakers identified a persistent tension between expectations from the school board and the city’s fiscal constraints. Multiple participants urged advocacy at the state level: one called it “a huge opportunity to get a significant amount [of funding]” from general‑assembly action. Others suggested local revenue options, including potential sales‑tax measures, corporate contributions or targeted public‑private partnerships to increase the capital envelope.

On facilities, discussion focused on the scale and sequencing of renovations versus new construction. Participants raised trade‑offs including disruption to students during major projects, energy‑efficiency gains from new builds versus lower up‑front cost renovations, and the need to prioritize maintenance that yields immediate cost savings (for example, installing solar where feasible). One participant proposed setting aside designated funds to smooth the impact of large projects so the city is not forced into last‑minute large expenditures.

Participants and staff emphasized that the retreat provided direction rather than formal decisions. Staff were asked to return with clearer funding scenarios and prioritized facility plans to inform the upcoming budget process.