On August 12, 2026 the Save Dallas City Hall Coalition asked a Dallas County district judge to order the city to repair City Hall, keep its emergency generators working, and finish the landmark designation it started in 2025. This page says what the suit asks, what it does not, and what it lays out about the money.
A 45-page verified petition, filed in Dallas County district court on August 12, 2026, the same day council rejected a $100 million City Hall repair proposition 7–8 and called the November bond election. The plaintiff is the coalition, a Texas nonprofit. The defendants are the city, the mayor, all fourteen council members, City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert, Historic Preservation Officer Marcus Watson, and Chief of Real Estate John Johnson, each sued in their official capacity. Counsel of record are Christopher D. Bowers, R. Michael Northrup, Sol Villasana, Vonciel Jones Hill, Robert J. Miklos, and Scott T. Griggs; Griggs and Hill are former council members.
The suit runs on five claims, each tied to a section of the city's own code:
The suit is brought under Chapter XXV of the city charter, the 2024 Proposition S, which lets residents sue the city to enforce its own laws after sixty days' notice. The coalition sent that notice on May 12, 2026. Coverage: KERA, Dallas Express.
The petition asks the court to order the mayor, council, city manager, and chief of real estate to repair the listed defects and stop the building deteriorating; to order the city manager and chief of real estate to maintain the generator system; to order the preservation officer to write the designation report on a schedule that lets council vote before the moratorium expires; and to extend that moratorium by as many months as the officer has delayed.
It does not ask for money. It does not ask the court to stop the city from studying a move, choosing a site, or leaving. A judge could grant every word of it and the council could still vote to relocate the next day. What the suit would change is the condition the building is in when that vote happens, and whether the building keeps its legal protection while the city decides.
This is a different case from the June one. In June, two council members won a restraining order because a special meeting's agenda was too vague; they dropped that suit in July. This one is about the building, not the notice.
The petition's fourth claim is the argument this site makes on the Why page, with the city's own memos as exhibits. As the coalition reads those memos:
On June 17, the city manager's item funding the search for somewhere else to go was written to draw its $2 million from that same generator and electrical line. Council amended it on the floor to take the money from the General Fund contingency reserve instead, and passed it 9–5. The petition's point is not that any of this broke federal rules. It is that the city found the money, set it aside for the building, and then did not fix the building.
These are the coalition's figures, drawn from city memos the petition cites. The city has not yet answered them in court.
Not dated: the city's answer, any motion to dismiss, and any hearing on the injunction. This page will say when those land.
1500marilla.com is not a party to the suit and is not affiliated with the coalition. The petition is public; read it and judge it yourself. What to do with any of this is on the How page.