Village of Hartland board agrees to study Arrowhead High School annexation after Arrowhead board sends letter of intent

The Village Board of the Village of Hartland on Nov. 24 agreed to pursue further review after Arrowhead School Board president Kim Schubert presented a letter of intent asking whether the village would consider annexing Arrowhead High School.

Schubert told the board that Arrowhead’s board began the discussion after two failed capital referendums and a series of facility workshops. She said the board sees three primary potential benefits from annexation: stronger community and school identity, enhanced student and family services through coordination with village recreation and youth programming, and improved support for school and community facilities, including the possibility of collaborating on a future natatorium. Schubert said Arrowhead has completed updated facility and site assessments and offered to provide those documents if the village wants to move forward.

Village President Fannerstil and staff framed the board’s immediate concerns as financial and operational. Chief (police) explained current school‑resource‑officer (SRO) coverage: Arrowhead is served by SROs coordinated through Waukesha County sheriff arrangements and the village would likely assign Heartland SROs if annexation occurred. The chief described a model with one day‑shift SRO assigned year‑round and a second‑shift SRO during the school year; he also outlined possible reimbursement scenarios and equipment and vehicle costs as illustrative examples. Ryan (village staff) said Arrowhead is already connected to village water and sewer at the connection point but noted some storm and on‑campus utilities remain private and would not automatically transfer to village responsibility unless agreed.

Trustees repeatedly pressed for hard numbers. Concerns included whether the village would inherit nonconforming roads or private sewer infrastructure that could require costly replacement, how DOR rules on jurisdictional “islands” might apply, and whether taxpayers would see any change given that school property is generally tax‑exempt. Multiple trustees said that while they saw community and programming benefits, they did not want to take on unexpected infrastructure costs and asked staff to obtain legal guidance.

The board voted to suspend the rules, reorder the agenda to hear the Arrowhead item immediately, and later directed staff to request a formal review by the village attorney and return with written findings. The action was exploratory: trustees signaled support for gathering attorney analysis and more detailed cost and infrastructure information before any formal annexation petition or petition‑level steps by Arrowhead.

Going forward, staff said they would share attorney feedback after a scheduled meeting and Arrowhead representatives said they would provide site‑specific assessments. The board did not take a binding vote on annexation; the next step is the attorney review and the circulation of the requested information to trustees.

Ending: The board left the matter open for consideration and directed staff to return with the attorney’s analysis and any additional data requested by trustees.