Mayor Timothy Nelson opened a special meeting Thursday to address last‑minute legal issues tied to Franklin High School's conditional use process and invited public comment on whether Highview Drive should remain emergency access only. "We are crystal clear on where citizens stand," Nelson said, adding the council had called the meeting to fulfill due process and to brief the plan commission.

The crux of the meeting centered on a council resolution and related amendment restricting certain accesses and uses at the high school property at 8222 S. 50th Street (tax key 8079999001) and whether the council should rescind or amend that resolution in light of a legal threat from Franklin Public Schools. Dozens of neighbors from the Forest Hill/40th Street area urged the council to keep Highview Drive limited to emergency access and to uphold conditions tied to a conservation easement. "I thought Franklin had a policy of not reconsidering issues for at least a year," resident Judith Williams Klacke said during public comment.

Residents gave detailed safety and traffic accounts tied to current conditions on S. 40th Street and adjacent streets: one speaker estimated the proposal would add "approximately 140 additional vehicle trips daily, 70 in the morning and 70 in the afternoon," and several cited repeated speeding and near‑misses on the straightaway. Several speakers noted that the referendum authorizing the high school improvements did not mention opening Highview Drive. "There's no mention of Highview Drive in it," Ethan Schlacks read from the referendum text.

The council considered a motion to go into closed session under Wisconsin Statute 19.85(1)(g) to confer with legal counsel about pending litigation; a roll call was held but the motion to enter closed session failed. After discussion of process and legal burdens, Alderman Day moved to "receive and place on file the information this evening and not take action on it," a motion the council approved (recorded as 3 ayes, 2 nos). The meeting packet described the agenda item as "Rescind an amendment to a resolution opposing conditions and restrictions for the approval of a conditional use" related to the high school; no rescission or amendment of the earlier council resolution occurred at the meeting.

City Attorney (name not provided) advised the council that the school district had informed the city the district "will be commencing litigation and that deadline is prior to a plan commission meeting," and cautioned that open‑session debate could add evidentiary material to the parties' arguments. The Director of Administration reminded the council that, under Wisconsin law, conditional use decisions and any conditions imposed must be supported by "substantial evidence — facts, data, and expert testimony — not public opinion or speculation."

Council members split on how to proceed. Alderman Craig urged closed session to protect taxpayer interests and to discuss settlement strategy, saying it was "in the best interest for all residents" to do so. Alderman Salus pushed back against what he described as repeated pressure from the applicant, saying, "If someone wanna sue us, let them sue us. We will prevail." Alderman Day, who ultimately moved to place the matter on file, said she would not continue debating the item without legal guidance and asserted there was no new evidence to justify overturning the earlier council action.

The meeting ended with the council taking no substantive change to the conditional use resolution; instead, the matter was received and placed on file for now. The mayor said the council would continue to follow due process, including plan commission review, and the city attorney and staff reiterated that litigation — if filed — will be resolved through the courts.

The transcript and public comments indicate continuing neighborhood concern about traffic safety, conservation easement protections, transparency and timing of special meetings, and whether the city or school district will monitor vehicle counts and access plans if conditional use conditions remain in place. The council did not adopt new traffic controls or changes to the conservation easement at the meeting and directed no staff actions that were recorded as formal assignments during open session.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions come from the meeting transcript; the city attorney and several staff members spoke but their full names were not provided in the record.)