001I don't know. What did you just say? All right. In order I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. real quick. You're telling me out of the six microphones up here, we got one that works. >> Two. Well, not creepy. Oh yeah, whatever. There's no Apologize for those watching online. We'll be right with you. All right, we'll go to public forum. Opportunity for the public to speak. Moving right along. Discussion of possible action. We'll start with the consolidation plan. Hello. There we go. Okay. Anybody? Try it now. There we go. All right. Good evening everybody. Uh I'm Becca from Iron Construction, part of your consolidation team. >> I'm Tim from uh HSR part
002of the team as well. >> And we've got R back here, too. So, we just have a really short update because not a ton of stuff has happened ready to report to you since last time we were in front of you guys. Uh, we did have one the first joint task force meeting two Mondays ago. So, we're kicking that off. Got another one coming up this next Monday. Okay. Just to remind everybody what the purpose of the joint task force is, is they're going to meet six times and collect as much data as they can on enrollment and building conditions and finances and all the things that go into a potential consolidation and then report back to you with a recommendation on May 13th. Um, this is the slide that we started off with the
003joint task force as they were we're assuming not everybody knows very much. We started kind of at base zero. Um the realities facing our districts, I just thought this is important for you all to hear. So the state funding is directly tied to student enrollment. Enrollment is declining across both districts. Cost continues to rise regardless of enrollment and operational referendums have become the bridge. And then you can see on the screen in front of you what um the operational referendums at both districts rely on at this time. So why are we here or why are we studying consolidation? Um really what we've been reviewing and discussing and continue to discuss is that proactive path forward. Um and really taking this voluntary consolidation study and being proactive with what we can to make the most out
004of the resources that the state gives us. Um so like we know the funding system at the state level is not likely to change. Um that's basically a given. Um we just mentioned the operational reliance that's going to continue um into the future as well. So what we are really trying to analyze and get to with the joint task force is talking about that efficiency and how can we be um the most efficient with the resources and really focus on the educational needs. Um without that um truly without change um costs shift to the taxpayers. Uh what that means is um as inflationary factors and other factors keep increasing costs. If we don't do something to be proactive within this conversation um those costs ultimately get shifted to the taxpayers through increased operational referendums. That's
005what we're trying to avoid. Um I know Bear's doing a study analysis on the financial side as well. Um, but that's really where we're at with the conversation. And then ultimately, um, what we're trying to achieve is that we're stronger together, um, and that reviewing resources of how we can best make that work. So, follow up for our first task force meeting. Um, there's a couple of people on the board here, uh, that were part of this. Um we summarized uh one of the takeaway exercises was a summary of consolidation could um and we asked everybody at that group what consolidation could mean to them. Um so the larger the letters here on this word uh the more uh that people referenced that. Um so like to see that we have students and opportunity and
006education as some of the largest uh things that everybody in the group really had consensus on. Um this is a little small but uh this is we had 23 people at the meeting. Um and basically all 23 of the people listed um what we believe is positive attributes of what consolidation could bring um to this. Um, so I think it's important to kind of build what other people are kind of saying about consolidation as part of the joint task force um, and really looking at this um, proactively to see how can this potentially work as an option and what does it mean um, to the two districts. So some next steps here, our next uh, joint task force meeting is next Monday. Um, it'll be focusing on Loyal. The first meeting was focusing on Greenwood
007um and the tours and such. Um so we'll tour uh Loyal at the end of the meeting and then continue conversations about diving into um some deeper planning at home. Um and then we have our weekly core team meeting. So we've been meeting weekly. We met this morning as well to continue um just conversations as a core team. And then on March 2nd is the third um task force meeting. Um at that meeting, uh Barry, your financial uh representatives from both districts will give an update as well as representatives from DPI as well as the Wisconsin rural uh schoolboard Alliance as well. Um really giving um a broader um a broader discussion of what is happening at the state level um for potential consolidations. just giving uh more information both on the financial side as
008well as uh potential state conversations as well. So, I guess with that, any questions of where we're at and where we're headed, >> any feedback you've heard from the first task force? >> Well, thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Next, uh, joint board meeting schedules and dates. Uh, we've been talking in our, uh, core team meetings about as we move down this path, there's going to be a lot of decisions and a lot of discussions, and we're not sure that one joint board meeting per month is going to be sufficient to stay on top of this. and and keep us moving forward in a direction that gets us where we need to be by summer. Um, in terms of putting a putting a question together that'll go on the November ballot. Um, so we're
009talking about looking at two joint board meetings a month starting in March. Um, and if we don't need them, we can cancel. But we know everyone's busy, so to get stuff on the calendar now and plan for it is probably better than trying to come up with something when we absolutely have to do it. Um, so one thing uh I was looking at is cancel any plans you have on Wednesdays. Um, it's about the only night that can work and we know that it's not going to work for everybody every time. I mean, you make what you can, but it's it's a way to try and keep our boards informed and and share that information more readily with the community. Um, so what what we talked about a little bit this morning was potentially having
010the first and third Wednesdays starting in March as joint board meetings nights and keeping the fourth Wednesday for regular school board meetings. Um, to put that in perspective, there's going to be so that that is and not everybody goes to everything. Um, but that's three of the four. In April, there's five Wednesdays. So, actually the regular schoolboard meeting may have to move to the fifth in Greenwood at least the Wednesday the fifth Wednesday because uh WASDA conference is the fourth Wednesday. So, I I won't be I'll be attending that. Um, but that keeps the regular board meeting where it you know where it normally is. Um then we have core meetings on Wednesday mornings and joint task force every other Monday night. So it's a lot of it's a lot of meetings but I think
011it's a strong structure to keep everybody informed and moving forward. It is a lot of meetings, but I think it's something that this is a major topic. Um, and if we want to have this thing done so we can have a plan for our quoters, then we can we have time to get that out by July, June or July. I think this is vitally important that we do sacrifice a little bit and have these important meetings. So for joint meetings it would be March 4th and 18th, April 1st and 8th. March or May 6th and 20th. >> Hold on. >> First and 15th. >> April 1st and 15th. You're right. 1 and 3rd, not 1 and 2. >> Yeah. Should be 14 days between them. And again, if we get ourselves somewhere where we don't
012have an agenda, then we just cancel it. We just don't meet >> this until >> we would use this format until we announce the plan and then we can reassess if we need to continue this schedule. So this would be something we would propose for the next 2 and 1/2 months with a re-evaluation after that. I don't think that requires a vote to do. I think more consensus is that is everybody on the same page if you but again we know that life happens and people travel for work and other things come up so we just all do our best. >> We're all going to Florida. Hey, you're going to say >> we can meet there. We just have to notice it that way. >> And thank you Myerin for sponsoring that. consolidated board organization.
013And when we left last time, we um said that we were going to bring this back to tonight's meeting to talk about um how we want to organize a consolidated school board. I think everybody was in agreement that we would look to have a sevenperson board. Um, but we wanted to a little time to think about lines and how to how to split that up. Um, I can tell you that I had I did have a conversation with Bob Butler at WASB about this um, and we talked a little bit about it. I tried to get Kirk to understand um last time, but it is indeed true that when you add at large positions, they are deter the they are determined by the the three the person that gets a three-year term initially, a two-year
014term, and a one-year term initially are determined by the pop the the number of votes, the top vote getters. Um Bob recommended that that's what we do. Um he said that it's like it's it's muddy to when you do it if you do it the do it a different way by defining zones. Uh he said he can find ways to argue for us if DPI doesn't agree with it because the law is muddy on that. But to keep it the least muddy and and to follow what other districts have done historically with consolidation, it was adding at large positions. Um how we how we determine those at large positions are up would be up to all of you. Um but that was his his recommendation to follow statute and keep it as clean as we
015can. Um, we had maps to look at last time. Um, we talked about Owen Avenue as a kind of a center line and looking at positions west of Owen Avenue and positions east of Owen Avenue. Uh, we talked about having a position within the city limits of each municipality. Um and then we talked about the the other piece was dividing it with another line east a northwest north south line to really break it down. Um but again Bob's recommendation in our situation would be to have one dividing line and create at large positions um on each side of that dividing line. So up for discussion. Um last at our last meeting according to state statute they recommend doing it by resident. I did a little thinking outside of the box and I got a hold
016of the county and I had figure had them figure out how many by township and how many in each city for registered voters because then I'm the people that are doing the referendum anyway. Um the own avenue line splitting it that way makes it really simple. Um and then one large position And then we can have one for the city and then two for the rurals on each side of that line. And I don't the percentages are really close actually. Okay. The percentages come out really fairly close all the way around if we would do it that way. So I just want to clarify what are potential questions. So you're thinking Owen Avenue one the city of Greenwood, one in the city of Loyal and then one at large for everything and then two rural
017maybe north south anything. >> That was my question too. You're saying one from each city and two east of On Avenue, two west of on Avenue, not within the city. >> Right. >> And then one at large of the whole consolidated district. >> Correct. >> Do we think this one's really fine? Um do we think that there is enough like people in the rural parts to Yeah. Okay. >> So for people at home, what Davey is explaining is >> sorry. >> So total registered voters in the school district of Greenwood is 1664. Total in the school district of Loyal is 1725. In the city of Greenwood is 641. in the city of Loyal 672. So that leaves approximately a thousand voters in each rural area and the atlarge position could come from anywhere throughout both
018districts. >> I think doing something like that would be fine. I think what you we would have to get some clarification on. I think I know how it would work, but I I'm pretty sure you would then be able to decide you'd have to say the two city positions you' because they're you'd have to decide that they would get either a three, two, or oneear term out of the chute. you would determine that and you would determine the um the the total one because there's no competition for that. And then you would then you would lump the two I think you would lump the two east of Owen Avenue at large positions and and the two west of Owen Avenue at large positions separately. You would say the two positions east of O Avenue, the
019the higher vote getter would get the longer term, whatever you determine that to be, and the second vote getter would get the lesser term to start in the same west of one avenue. So you you can define as much of that as you want, but when you have multiple that's that's why that's why Bob said it's cleanest just to do all at you know all at large and then you have the yeah if you have three west of O and three east of O and then the top the top vote getter gets a three-year term the second vote getter gets a two-year term the third vote getter gets a three-year term and then you would decide what that at large from the whole because it would be on on a cycle it would be two
020two and two in years 1, two, and three. So that at large at the whole would add a third position to either the one year, two year or three year. So it has to be the statute also has to be evenly split over a 3-year period. So it has to be some order of 32 and two up for re-election if that makes sense. So I think if you're going to take action on areas, we could do that. But then I would like I would like to get clarification on how once you decide that how statutoily we determine or the voters determine who starts with a three-year term, who starts with a 2-year term, who starts with a one-year term. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. You want to summarize your side count to try to
021explain what I understand. >> So it's the same. It's the same thing. You're good with >> I get what you're saying. >> Okay. So my question then is do we feel strongly about having a specific area in both cities and do we feel comfortable assigning a time frame or a time term for those positions? Because I understand what you're saying with like if it's split and not specified in the city then it makes it a little easier to determine the terms. Correct. >> Yeah. The reason the reason for that is because when people vote so when you're voting for an atlarge position and it said and there's two it'll say vote for no more than two. So people have the option to I mean there there are people that will vote for the at large
022but they don't live in the city even though they can. They won't vote for that. So to to say that you're just strictly going to base it on the number of votes that they get. people don't always vote for all of the positions that they can. So that's that's why it doesn't mean you can't do that. You could I believe you still can say you know here's our seven positions. The top three vote getters are three-year terms. The top I think you you know the second two are the two-year terms and the third two are the one-year term. I think you can do that. He encouraged us to consider not doing that just because of the fact that people don't always vote for all of the positions even though they can. So even in the
023most basic, easiest, we had three different elections. one for the three positions on the Greenwood side of Owen Avenue, one for the three positions on the loyal side of Owen Avenue, and then one for somebody from that's representing that whole area. And everybody would vote for all three of those and that would be the cleanest. I mean, everybody can would have the ability to vote for all positions. It would be on everybody's ballot. >> Correct. Yes. I guess my question to the group is, is there a reason we need to break out the cities versus having three on one side, three on the other? what do you guys do right now got two city 98 98 what I don't have there just my experience with that that was a historic thing that when we consolidated
024the the township schools they wanted the representation in the different areas. My experience on the board is sometimes it's hard to find people to represent certain areas. The larger you make it, the easier it is to get people on. Um, yeah, we have ours are split into like a quadrant and one in the city for the most part. There's one. I mean, there's Yeah, there's a there's a northwest, a northeast, a south, a city, and then an at large. All right. I have a question just cuz I want to make sure I'm understanding this. So, when you're like, if we do put units at the three at large, three at large, Owen Avenue, and then one at large total. So when you go if you want to run for school board like we all had
025to run in a when this spot was open for where you live. So anybody can run at is that what we're saying right? So at any time I can run this >> if if you live east of Owen Avenue you can run any year and every year that there's yeah every year. Are we at all concerned about children? >> Well, I'm not just because I haven't experienced it. >> I'm just thinking like >> I mean there's >> anybody can run at any time. Somebody might just run and run and run and I don't know. I mean which is fine but are you know like do we want I'm just thinking like do we want that ability? Are we worried at all about constant change and change and change? >> I think you're going to have
026a harder time finding people to run rather than someone running consistently for every time. Just just history shows. >> I think that could happen though. I think if somebody really wanted to get on the school board and they didn't win, you know, if if if one year they didn't beat Eliza, the next year Dean's up, they could run against Dean. And if they didn't beat Dean and Sean's up the next year, they could run against Shawn. Like I and they could keep running until either they give up or somebody the voters say that they are a better candidate than the person they're running against. >> Right. I'm just Right. Exactly. And that's what I was just trying to like talk out loud because you know right now if somebody in the city of Loyal wants
027to run they can only run at certain times. If somebody in North 98 can only run at certain times. So I was just thinking out loud like what that could look like. >> Yeah. We we already have that to some extent because I could run for my Eden Township district and I could run for the at large. So you'd be two out of the three copy to run, but once you got on, you'd be on a three-year term. So for tonight, maybe we just make a motion on the line. We pick Avenue as the line. get clarification on how you want to move forward. We don't need to have this set tonight, but we could pick the line. That's how we started the conversation, right? >> Yeah. The only thing that I want clarification on
028is after you determine >> the only thing I would want clarification on is after the joint board determines how to structure the areas. I just want clarification on how to how to fit them in the 3, two, and oneear terms to start. So, we do it the right way. If if the joint board decides to go totally at large, it's a it's easy. That's all that's very cut and dry by statute. The top voter gets a three-year term, the second voter gets a 2-year term, or the second most populous gets a two-year, and and the third gets a a one-year term. And then you would decide at large of all if you want that automatically fit into start with a three-year term, start with a two-year term, or start with a one-year term because they're
029they're running against they're for one position. So they don't Yeah. So that's the that's the cleanest and easiest way. It's only if you wanted to break it down further that I would want clarification. I move to have three at large positions west of Owen Avenue, three east of Owen Avenue, and one complete atlarge position. >> So, a seven person board. Sean, yeah, you second that. But I just want to say that the atlarge altogether, I think that we could all agree that that is the one that gets a one-year term in the beginning. That can always change. >> Okay. But >> so sorry to interrupt. My question I was just asking is out of that how like if I'm running, am I running? Do I have to specifically run for that at large position >>
030or like how do you figure who's the your at large person compared to your east or west you know later? >> Yes. >> Like how do you fill that? >> Yes. There will be three there'll be three if in that motion there will be three ballot spots. One ballot spot will be east of Owen Avenue. Choose up to three. One will be west of Owen Avenue. choose up to three and one will be at large of the entire consolidated district. Choose one. >> So you have to specifically run for that at large position. >> That's correct. >> And I believe both districts are set up that way now. You have to run for the at large position. You can't run for both. Right. Yeah. >> All right. All right, I got a motion and a
031second. All in favor? >> Oppos. I'll make a motion like did it. >> You want me to repeat it? I got it from >> um three at large east of Bowen Avenue, three at large west of Owen Avenue, one at large for the whole district. I'll >> second. All those in favor >> I motion carries. We got brand new committee update. >> Okay. So, I am going to give a pretty extensive thorough update on the branding since a lot has happened since the last time we were here. Uh, Eliza and I had met just to kind of recap everything that's happened this far. So, uh, Eliza and I wanted to share a very detailed update on the branding committee's work so our communities are aware of the steps taken up until this point. Although we
032have provided updates at each monthly joint board meeting, we wanted to take a moment moment to recap the work completed thus far. During the summer of 2025, the joint boards began discussing the formation of the ad hoc committee to begin addressing key components that needed to be included in the consolidation plan. As a reminder, this plan will be presented to the communities prior to the binding vote in November, ensuring voters are fully informed about what they're voting on. In the beginning of 2020, sorry, in the beginning of September of 2025, both Greenwood and Loyal schools asked their communities via Facebook and Remind to join this ad hoc branding committee. People were encouraged to join this committee and when Loyal didn't have enough participants, we sent out a second request asking for more participation via the
033Remind app. We were able to fill this committee the following day. Eliza and I were appointed appointed by the schoolboard presidents to be advisers on this committee to oversee the process and to report back to the joint board. We were given the list of volunteers in the middle part of October. We reached out to them via email and scheduled the first meeting being held in Greenwood on 11325. We met with participants and provided them an agenda as to what we were hoping to accomplish within this group. During the first meeting, we were able to brainstorm mods, vision statements, and mission statements. We also discussed the process of how we could gather ideas from the public. We wanted to ensure that everyone who had an idea could submit submit that idea to us, even if it
034meant receiving hundreds of submissions to sort through. The window to submit ideas was from 111925 to 1526, and we had received over 300 submissions. A majority of people submitted their ideas through the QR code or the link that was posted on Facebook in the school websites. We did have a handful of paper submissions that were also turned into the office. Paper forms were located on Facebook to print out the TRG to cut out and also sent home with elementary students. Middle school and high school students as well as teachers received an email with a link to click on to submit their ideas. And people were not limited to how many ideas they could submit. Eliza and I then provided the committee with all of the submissions to review prior to our meeting on January 11th,
0352026 in Loyal. At this meeting, we were able to finalize a mission statement, motto, and vision statement. The committee started by reviewing all submissions. They decided to eliminate any submissions that stated Loyal or Greenwood for the school name as this did not reflect a joint venture. From there, the committee thoroughly discussed name options, including similarities across the list. They decided on Clark Central, Hartland Central, and Loyal Greenwood. There were also many submissions for mascot ideas. The committee discussed and decided that they wouldn't include Greyhounds or Indians because those are the current mascots and we are looking for a new combined mascot that represents our new potential consolidated district. The committee also decided to remove wolves from consideration, not because it isn't a strong or meaningful mascot. Rather, there is an existing history and perception tied
036to how the name was selected in the past. Since some of our co-op teams used wolves while others did not, the name carries mixed associations. To move forward with a fresh identity, the committee felt it was best to eliminate it from consideration. Many of the other submissions were considered and discussed, but there were mascots for other schools around the area and we didn't want to duplicate them and want our own identity. There were also some very cute and creative submissions I want to mention that likely came from elementary students, including but not limited to the clowns, the giraffes, and the elephants. All remaining mascot submissions were thoughtfully reviewed and discussed by the committee. Each submission was given consideration before the final four mascots were selected. On behalf of the entire branding committee, we would like
037to thank everyone who submitted ideas and share their thoughts with us. The committee is pleased with the level of participation and appreciates the community's engagement in this process. From there, the committee wanted to inform the community, students, and staff what each of these names and mascots represent. They created a flyer and hung them up around the communities and the schools to get the word out to people that voting would begin today and to explain what each mascot and name meant. Voting opened today and was published in the TRG which will be delivered to all loyal mailboxes this week. It will also appear in the TRG for Greenwood mailboxes on February 25th. Voting links are available on both school districts Facebook pages and websites. I think today or tomorrow. Tomorrow for Greenwood. I think ours went
038today. Paper submissions clipped from the TRG will also be accepted. Please note that only one submission per person is allowed. Online submissions require an email address, while paper submissions must include a name. This information is used solely to help ensure a fair and accurate voting process. Elementary students will receive a paper ballot sent home with them tomorrow. Parents are encouraged to review the information, assist their child in completing the form, and return it to the school office. Voting will conclude on March 11th, 2026, allowing four weeks for participation. The committee will meet again on March 15th. At that meeting, the committee will collectively tally and review the voting results. This information will be incorporated into the consolidated consolidation plan. They will also discuss how the selected name and mascot will be then communicated to the
039public. The committee plans to represent its recommendation for the school name and mascot to this joint board in April. One question that has come up um several times to Eliza and I is whether this selected name and mascot would still be used for our co-op athletic teams if the referendum does not pass. So that's something that Eliza and I wanted to bring to you guys and I don't know if we can discuss it tonight, but um you know in the event that the the vote doesn't pass in November and we have this mascot, is it something that we intend to use for all of our co-op sports? because if it is, we want to talk about colors and things like that either way. Um, so you know, when coaches and teams are looking at getting
040new uniforms or whatever, we we kind of have an idea. So, I'll leave that up for discussion. Is that okay if we discuss that, Joe, Chris, or >> due to time tonight? >> Sure. >> So, we'll put that on next month's agenda. just due to time constraints tonight, but we will talk about whether or not and maybe just >> I think we'll post it specifically for that. >> Okay. >> No questions and nobody missed it. >> Sure, that sounds good. And then yeah, if everybody could just kind of think about that and what we're, you know, cuz it was brought up to us and we were like, "Oh, yeah, that's a really good thought." We didn't really think of that. So, >> does anybody else have any questions for us? The only other question I
041had or thought was, you know, when we talk about that at the next joint board meeting, um, whether or not you want us to move forward as a committee with colors right away, if we need to slow things down and kind of wait for the the ad hoc committee to to get anything else accomplished, I'm not sure. Just from a timeline standpoint, we want to make sure that we're doing the things in the right order. So the colors are not important uh as of right now in our plan. No, >> but they are important to usually co-op sports coaches that may be >> so >> jerseys that it's not >> but with the co-op teams that are currently having and then if let's say it doesn't pass what happens I think that would be a
042very good discussion to have and we can kind of go from there. All right. I just real quick want to thank the branding committee. Uh what you guys did was above and beyond. Um and to the public, I get it. You might not like the four mascots selected. I might not like them myself, but you can't question the process that they took to get to where they got. And uh I think that says a lot. I think we've come a long ways in the last couple of years of how we've done some things. And again, I want to thank the branding committee, both you too and all the people who put in the effort. Thank you. Next on the agenda is golf. Um, we talked last month about uh bringing that to the floor to
043potentially approve co-oping varsity golf in 2027. Coach Stagower, anything to add >> golf coach stagn. >> Well, that's not approved yet. And if anybody is interested in coaching golf, please let me know ASAP. Um, you know, when this first started, um, it was last year and our timeline was really short. Um, when we came to the conclusion that, hey, we need a golf team cuz some of our kids were advocating for it. Um, if it would have worked out better, I think it should have happened last year if our timeline was a little different. Um, so I think that's where we need to go with this. Um, this year Greenwood is going to be with us as a part of a JV program and I think it just makes sense to eventually make that into
044a varsity co-op. Um, the part that I want to put on your radar tonight though is I don't know that this possibly is just a Loyal and Greenwood thing. Um, initially the loyal side and myself had conversations that we would also like to include Neilsville um because that was the previous co-op um under golf. So, uh I just want to let you know that those are the conversations that we're having and will be having with our board eventually. Um and Neil Smith will be having the same as well. But just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware that this could happen and just not a surprise to anybody. So, are there any questions? All right. Thank you. >> So, I think we go up together tonight and then later. >> Yeah. So, that's a
045great question and I should have clarified. So, thank you, Davey. Um, so the co-op deadline is May 1st. So, if we're agreeing tonight that it would be a varsity co-op for sure with us in 2027. Um, but it could also potentially at Mealsville before that May 1 deadline from the WIA. So, we will talk about that again, I'm assuming next month or or very short uh time here. I just want to throw out there that two years ago I was approached from the north um about co-oping with Owen with golf as well and we declined that because it would have taken too many kids out of our baseball program and and wrecked that. So um regard we don't there's a golf course to our south and to our north and I think you know down
046the road there's probably potential somewhere. So the question is only boys, right? Is there a profession against girls? So y So just a little history. Um the WIA girls season does happen in the fall. Um and a lot of schools that are our size do play in the spring. So girls are allowed to play. However, there's no WIA tournament for girls in the spring. Um, so there are regular season competitions that they would be able to compete at. Um, just not as a part of the tournament. And the reason that a lot of schools our size do this is just because, you know, if you look at what's happening in the fall, you know, you have some pretty big time girls sports. You have volleyball, you have cross country. Um, and those all, like Mr.
047Green says, you know, takes away from the participation numbers in some of those other sports. So, coach, how many people on the varsity squad at once? >> Right. I thought it was five, but five. And your thoughts are every week they would play around best five make varsity that week. >> Yeah. So the top five scoring this year would be loyal, right? Because uh Greenwood can't participate on the varsity team, but the top five would be your your people playing varsity. Um and finding out that a lot of the meets are both varsity and JB at the same time. So, same condition, same course, very comparable numbers, you know, for that. Um, numbers wise, um, we just had a meeting on Tuesday. Um, we're expecting nine loyal athletes and one Greenwood athlete. So, we'll have
04810 on our team. So, I guess I don't know how much you want me to say cuz I do want to talk about this, you know, at our meeting coming up, too. Um but I did meet with Mulesville Country Club last week. Um the plan is to practice at their facility 2 days a week. Um and then we would be using our facilities in Loyal, you know, as a range of practice um and things like that. And then we do have um somebody who's willing to help out coach who may have a golf simulator, you know, at their facility or at their house. So that'll be nice as well. They just purchased it last week. Anyone else? My recommendation would be to approve on Greenwood tonight and then see what what happens. We have time.
049But to do that, I'll make a motion to co-op Greenwood Royal Golf with the possibility of Millsville joining as well. I'll second that. >> All in favor of consolidated golf with Loyal >> oppos. recommendation to combine those. >> Have a motion to combine. Kurt second. All those in favor? >> Motion carries. >> All right, we're back to public forum, public comment. Anybody got something they want to say before we wrap this up? All right. Uh let's set the next meeting date, times, topics. So March 4th would be the next joint meeting in Loyal. Um should we go with 6:30? 6:30 start will determine if we're doing closed first or second um based on how core team and joint task force go uh and the needs. So March 4th uh the only >> one second we've
050got two members who can't make March 4th. Could we move it up a week? >> Can't do that. >> What about the other seconds task force? Please, can you guys call in? >> I'll zoom in. All right, let's just leave it on the fourth then. >> Yeah, I can. >> I'll be in Rochester at zoom. I should be >> Yeah, this is Let's leave it on the fourth. >> Leave it the fourth. >> Okay, they'll zoom in. Okay, we're going to run into those like it the spring especially gets busy. So, uh the only thing that right other than what's the standing things on this agenda uh would be the timeline for the branding and the and and the how it how it's going to be used and when. Anything else that we need to
051add? I will keep I will keep consolidated board organization on it so that which is the so we can get some clarification on just make I think we're set but uh I'll keep it on there just to give you an update and then we can add off after next month >> they will be so question is are we going to get an update from the principles they are meeting here very soon and I would or next month they have they will report back. >> I know they sent it once. >> Yep. So they are accepting um schedules or what the kids have signed students have signed up for right now and they'll have a better idea come in March. >> If not the 4th the 18th of March should be >> you should have a
052better idea then right? >> I can give you an update on the fourth just kind of number wise and then finalized funding. >> All right. Thank you. So, one second. If board members, if you do have something comes up, all right, you have an idea or something that you want to put on the agenda, please let Joe or I know, right? >> Thank you. >> I'm going to need a motion to go close. I'll make a motion. Crystal second.