WAUKESHA — A citizens group filed a lawsuit Tuesday aiming to block the upcoming $136.2 million Arrowhead School District referendum, saying district officials’ misrepresentations about the capital needs and the financial impact behind it and a failed 2024 effort violated state law.
The lawsuit was filed by a group called Arrowhead No, including among others former Waukesha Town Chairman John Marek, Kenneth Dragotta and Jerry Luedtke. They claimed in the suit the district, its school board and administrators "have repeatedly made … false representations pertaining to proposed referendums that seek taxpayer approval for massive amounts of money to implement what the facts show are insufficiently planned, factually unsupported and unneeded building replacements and renovations to the current Arrowhead high school campus. This includes the AUSD’s most recent January 15, 2025 approval of a referendum that it has represented will only cost the taxpayers $136,200,000. However, the actual true cost over the life of the bonds will be approximately $230,000,000, almost $100 million more."
A message left with AHS Superintendent Conrad Farner was not immediately returned Wednesday.
The suit said the $262 million referendum voters rejected last fall would have actually cost about $405 million over its life. "(B)oth these referendum approvals are based on misstatements, concealing of actual facts, trickery about the need for repairs to the buildings, and inaccurate and false statements about the true costs to the taxpayers," the suit said.
If approved, the fall referendum would have seen the two high school buildings demolished and replaced with one new larger building, as well as new sports fields, tennis courts, football stadium, swimming pool, auditorium and indoor practice facility, with the administration claiming a new campus was needed despite recently falling district enrollment.
It said the district suggested a safety concern in its desire to keep students in one building rather than moving between buildings and creating a "real risk" of abduction or security issues. The suit called those concerns "alarmist," saying no abductions, break-ins or vandalism has taken place in 25 years.
The suit said some of the plaintiffs took a tour of the facilities last November. They noted minor things like stained and water-damaged ceiling tiles in a gym, missing areas of tiles, and other areas in need of painting or maintenance. But they found "no evidence of major disrepair of any significance" during their tour, the suit said. A Buildings and Grounds supervisor "confirmed there were ‘no roof leaks, no HVAC issues, no pool leaks,’" the suit said.
"Separately, in a meeting on December 10, 2024, AUSD employees stated to Plaintiff members Mr. Dragotta and Mr. Marek that $10 million would be sufficient to bring needed and neglected work up to standards," the suit said.
The district remained "undeterred" and presented a slimmed down $136 million referendum to voters to consider next month, the suit said. But the plans for it are "conceptual. There are no detailed analyses justifying the actual costs of the new lower but still very large $136,000,000 loan that is being sought. Moreover, AUSD has, in effect, already selected the prime contractor for the project and will not be engaging in seeking competitive bids from other qualified contractors," the suit said.
The suit also accused the district of violating election laws by using taxpayer resources to print flyers and other literature to advocate for referendum efforts, all repeating the same misinformation.
"The Courts have ruled that misrepresentations of the types described herein, and made in furtherance of obtaining approval of a referendum, are improper and actionable," the suit said.
The suit seeks to have the April 1 referendum blocked, citing a state law that prohibits anyone from making "a false representation pertaining to a candidate or referendum which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election." In the event the referendum is allowed to proceed, the suit asks that the district be enjoined from "implementing any authority to seek or borrow funds for purposes of making capital improvements, or otherwise."
