Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tulsa council pauses demolition, gives property owner 90 days to pursue rehabilitation plan
Summary
After hearing testimony from code enforcement and the property owner, the City Council continued an appeal over a nuisance-abatement order for 5707 N. Frankford Ave. to April 29, 2026 and directed staff to help the owner with a construction schedule and resource referrals.
Tulsa City Council on Wednesday agreed to delay enforcement on a nuisance-abatement order and gave the property owner in the case 90 days to submit a rehabilitation plan.
The action came during a hearing on case no. 116646-2025 concerning the property at 5707 North Frankford Avenue. Kevin Cox of the city’s Code Enforcement Department told councilors that inspections beginning in October found “trash, junk, and debris, [an] unsecured structure, [and] an inoperable vehicle,” and that a separate inspection led to a finding the structure had deteriorated to the point the hearing officer signed an order of abatement.
The appellant, identified in the record as Mr. Atatula, described what he called years of fraud and then efforts to secure and repair the house. “This property was stolen from me,” he told the council, saying he later transferred title to the Joseph Atatula Foundation in 2022 to protect it. He said he had had the roof patched and the structure secured but disputed any immediate need for demolition.
City staff said the signed order gives the property owner 30 business days to produce a construction schedule, but enforcement teams typically provide more time when an owner is actively working on repairs. Cox said the city files a notice of lien when a property is declared a public nuisance; the lien “clouds the title” but carries no direct monetary value and serves to notify future buyers that the property must be brought into compliance.
Councilor Dechter Wright moved to continue the appeal for 90 days — until April 29, 2026 at 5 p.m. — and asked council members and city advocates to work with the owner to identify programs, legal aid and a feasible construction timeline. The motion passed on a roll-call vote. Cox told councilors staff will work with the appellant and with Carrie Fothergill, the city citizen advocate, to assemble a construction schedule and explore assistance options.
Cox said once a construction schedule and plans are submitted, a typical timeline for rehabilitation is about six months but can be adjusted for weather or supply delays. Council members pressed staff to clarify program eligibility, structural soundness and potential costs; staff recommended the appellant pursue legal advice for title issues and offered a city resource guide listing contractors, investor contacts and demolition-incentive programs.
The council’s continuation leaves the hearing officer’s order intact while the owner pursues rehabilitation steps and city staff monitor progress. The appeal is scheduled to return to the City Council chambers on April 29, 2026, at 5 p.m.
