Council confirms $420,527 abatement and authorizes lien for Cororan Entertainment Complex amid owner challenge

Menifee — Menifee City Council on March 4 confirmed a final statement of abatement costs totaling $420,527 for the Cororan Entertainment Complex and authorized staff to place a lien or special assessment on the property if the owner does not pay.

The action comes after a multi‑year series of code‑enforcement steps described by the city: the project stalled after the COVID‑era pause, permits expired, notices of violation were issued, the city secured an inspection warrant and declared the site a public nuisance, and in 2025 the council approved demolition and site clearance. Building Official Craig Carlson told the council the accounting for abatement included $10,339 for staff time, roughly $251,652 in consultant and demolition costs, and $158,536 in legal fees — bringing the total to $420,527.

"Total abatement costs for the project are at $420,527," Carlson said during the presentation.

The property owner’s counsel, Andrea Contrarus, told the council she does not contest the demolition expense itself but objected to the legal fees line. "We do not contest the demolition costs themselves… What we do contest are the $158,000 in attorney's fees that show up as a line item," Contrarus said, arguing that state law and the municipal code require express statutory authority or a prevailing‑party determination for recovery of attorney fees.

City Attorney Nom Duzman told the council the municipal code defines abatement costs broadly and that, if the owner does not reimburse the city, staff may record either a lien on the property or place an assessable special assessment on the tax roll. "If they do not make the payment in a timely fashion, then pursuant to this resolution, you're authorizing staff to either record a lien or special assessment," Guzman said. He explained differences in enforcement and foreclosure mechanics between the two collection tools.

Council members questioned whether the owner's appeal to the statement of costs was timely; the city produced a delivery receipt showing the statement was delivered Nov. 20, 2025, and council found the owner's written objections were received after the 15‑day administrative appeal period. After discussion, the council adopted the resolution confirming the abatement costs and authorizing placement of a lien or special assessment on the property in case of delinquency. The motion passed on a 4‑0 roll call.

The owner has the option to pay the amount asserted by the city; if not paid, the city said it will proceed under the chosen collection tool, which could include foreclosure under the special assessment process if unpaid for the statutory period. The property owner’s attorney said her client’s litigation challenging the demolition remains ongoing and may seek damages if a court later finds the orders unlawful.

Next steps: staff will make the mechanics of lien placement and assessment available as required by municipal code; the owner may continue pursuing litigation in court over the demolition and legal‑fee disputes.

Reported speakers and sources: Craig Carlson (Building Official); Andrea Contrarus (land use attorney for the property owner); Nom Duzman (City Attorney); City staff presentations and council roll‑call vote.