At a multi‑hour workshop, staff presented a 10‑year housing planning frame and participants discussed how to translate that into shelters, permanent supportive housing and increased housing supply. Staff laid out a $110,000,000 planning figure for housing over a 10‑year window; participants used that figure to explore tensions, trade‑offs and opportunities.

The discussion centered on two practical choices: whether to concentrate resources in one comprehensive low‑ or no‑barrier shelter that bundles services, or to distribute smaller shelters and supports across multiple sites. Several participants argued for a single comprehensive site with co‑located services. One participant urged a quick decision on a site, saying the priority was “let’s just do it already.” Another described an approach to “build more permanent supportive housing” rather than rationing modest investments over many years.

Participants repeatedly raised neighborhood opposition and cost as constraints. As one participant put it, the trade‑off is “location … and also whether or not we’re managing it or cobbling together outside resources.” Speakers also discussed the city’s role in managing or partnering with outside providers; several comments favored city leadership or oversight of a shelter while using partner agencies for services.

Beyond shelters, the group discussed production and preservation of the broader housing stock. Ideas that emerged included streamlining the city’s development review and permitting processes to lower project costs and speed delivery, pursuing targeted preservation investments to keep at‑risk units affordable, and expanding support for community land trusts and nonprofit builders. One participant noted that directing the existing annual allocation toward preserving 360 at‑risk units could yield a lower per‑unit cost than new construction.

Workshop leaders emphasized the exercise was for “direction setting” and not for making final policy decisions. As the facilitator put it, “We’re not deciding anything today.” The staff team will use the direction and themes from the retreat to develop concrete budget and program proposals for later consideration.

What happens next: staff will take the priorities and themes from the workshop into the budget development process and return specific proposals for formal decisions in the budget cycle.