OC outrage vs. Costco tax deal

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, August 5, 2026

City officials in Brea approved a 50-year tax-sharing agreement with developer Dwight Manley for a Costco and gas station project on the former Beckman Coulter campus, which limits the city's immediate sales tax revenue and gradually increases its share over time. The deal has sparked backlash from residents and advocacy groups who argue it disproportionately benefits the developer, raising concerns about transparency and fairness that could lead to legal challenges.

Plans to develop a Costco and gas station on the former 34-acre Beckman Coulter campus in Brea have sparked significant controversy among local residents. The dispute centers on a 50-year tax-sharing agreement approved by city officials in December 2025 with developer Dwight Manley, which some community members say disproportionately favors the developer over the city.

Under the terms of the agreement, Brea’s general fund will not receive any discretionary sales tax revenue from the Costco project for the first two years of operation. Following this initial period, the city’s share of the sales tax will begin at 5% and gradually increase, reaching an even 50-50 split with the developer after approximately three decades. In addition, 5% of the annual sales tax revenue generated after the rebate starts will be allocated annually to support senior center programs in the city.

Financial projections indicate that over the full duration of the agreement, Manley could receive roughly $77 million, while the city’s total revenue from the deal is expected to exceed $50 million. Approximately $7 million is earmarked for senior center initiatives. Moreover, if Brea raises its sales tax rate during the agreement’s term, the developer would be entitled to 40% of the additional sales tax revenue generated.

The tax-sharing arrangement has drawn sharp criticism from local advocacy groups. Mark Strom, representing Brea4All, condemned the process, citing “a complete lack of transparency” and accusing officials of “sneaking around making key decisions in private.” Some residents have expressed frustration that the city’s financial benefits appear limited, especially in the project’s early years, and that the long-term deal heavily favors the developer.

City officials have maintained that the agreement is designed to balance attracting significant commercial investment with supporting community services, such as senior programs, over the long term. Despite this, opposition voices continue to push for greater accountability and have indicated that the dispute may advance toward legal action.

The controversy highlights broader tensions over tax-sharing deals and public-private partnerships in local economic development, with questions over transparency, fairness, and community benefit at the forefront of public debate.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.