The Save Dallas City Hall Coalition filed a verified petition against the City of Dallas and its top elected and administrative officials Wednesday, asking a judge to compel inspections, repairs and historic-preservation work at the I.M. Pei-designed City Hall.
The lawsuit names Mayor Eric Johnson, all 14 Dallas City Council members, City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert, Historic Preservation Officer Marcus Watson and Chief of Real Estate John Johnson in their official capacities. It seeks writs of mandamus and temporary and permanent injunctions, but no compensatory or punitive damages.
The City declined to comment because of the pending litigation, a spokesperson told KERA.
Lawsuit seeks inspections and repairs
The coalition alleges officials have allowed water intrusion, drainage problems, garage deterioration and generator and electrical deficiencies to persist while the City explores relocating operations from 1500 Marilla St.
The Dallas Landmark Commission unanimously initiated the historic-designation process for City Hall on March 3, 2025. That vote placed the property under a predesignation moratorium that, absent another terminating event, expires March 3, 2027.
The Dallas City Code prohibits “demolition by neglect” on property covered by such a moratorium. It also says that, upon receiving an interested party’s request, the historic preservation officer “shall” meet with the owner or controlling agent to inspect the structure, discuss repair financing and prepare a report for the Landmark Commission.
The coalition submitted that request July 22, 2026. Watson acknowledged it August 5, 2026, and referred future communications to the City Attorney’s Office, according to the petition. The filing says the coalition received no meeting date, inspection schedule or report timetable before it sued.
The petition expressly concedes that its requested 14-day response period was not a deadline imposed by the ordinance and that referring the matter to city attorneys was not independently unlawful. It instead alleges continued inaction in light of the City’s longstanding knowledge of the building’s condition and the limited duration of the moratorium.
Coalition seeks nonmonetary relief
“The City expects private citizens to maintain their properties, but refuses to take responsibility for maintaining our historic City Hall and Plaza,” Coalition President Bruce Richardson said in a press release.
The petition also traces about $22.7 million in City Hall-related ARPA Redevelopment Fund budget capacity. However, it says the accounting cannot yet be fully reconciled and does not allege that every remaining dollar is federal money or subject to the same federal deadline.
The coalition wants the court to order necessary stabilization and repairs, require maintenance of the emergency generator system, compel the historic-preservation reports and extend the predesignation moratorium by the length of any proven delay. A court has not ruled on the allegations.
Lawsuit relies on voter-approved charter provision
The lawsuit relies in part on Chapter XXV of the Dallas City Charter, which voters adopted through Proposition S in November 2024. As previously reported by The Dallas Express, Dallas HERO led the petition campaign that placed Proposition S before voters.
The provision allows a Dallas resident, including a qualifying nonprofit, to sue the City for alleged noncompliance with the charter, a city ordinance or state law after providing 60 days’ notice. It authorizes declaratory and injunctive relief and states that the measure waives the City’s governmental immunity to the extent of liability created by those laws.
The coalition says its May 12, 2026, notice matured for claims involving demolition by neglect, alleged abuse of city property and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Its July 22, 2026, notice has not completed the 60-day period, so the petition brings the related inspection claim against Watson under separate mandamus and ultra vires theories, arguing that he failed to perform a required act or acted outside his lawful authority.
The legal reach of Chapter XXV remains disputed. In June, the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of different Chapter XXV and ultra vires claims in Sarno v. Board of Adjustment for the City of Dallas. The court did not decide whether state law preempted Chapter XXV. It instead held that those plaintiffs had not identified a law supporting their Chapter XXV claim or sufficiently precise, nondiscretionary duties supporting their ultra vires claims.
The coalition’s petition addresses that decision and argues its case differs because the preservation ordinance identifies triggering events, responsible officials and actions the code says those officials “shall” or “must” perform. The City has not filed its response to that argument.
City cites repair and occupancy costs
As previously reported by The Dallas Express, the council voted 9-6 on June 10, 2026, against funding a proposed phased repair strategy. It voted 9-5 one week later to authorize up to $2 million in due diligence on possible relocation sites for City Hall functions and up to $1 million for separate 911 and emergency-operations sites. Those votes did not authorize a purchase, lease or move.
Consultants estimated major repairs would cost between $531.6 million and $610.8 million, while 20-year occupancy costs could approach $1.6 billion with modernization, temporary space, financing and operations included.
Johnson said after the June 10, 2026, vote that remaining in the obsolete building likely would have cost more than $1 billion and that the council directed the city manager to consider the future of the city’s center.
The coalition disputes the City’s broader estimates and argues the required preservation review should separate immediate stabilization and repair costs from modernization, relocation, financing, operations, demolition and redevelopment expenses. The court will have to determine whether the coalition can proceed and whether officials failed to perform enforceable duties.
Provided by Dallas Express
