The City of Brea’s approval of a landmark tax-sharing deal with a prominent local developer to bring a Costco to town is now the center of a legal dispute over the city’s disclosure of public records.
Brea4All, a local advocacy group, alleges that the city violated the California Public Records Act and the California Constitution by failing to provide complete, legible and properly organized text message records related to the Costco store and gas station proposed to be built on the east side of town.
The group filed a writ of mandate against the city and Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Jason Killebrew in Orange County Superior Court on Sept. 29.
The suit largely surrounds text message conversations between Killebrew and local developer Dwight Manley and the pair’s discussions about creating the Costco store and gas station development.
Beginning in the early 2000s, Manley became a major investor in the revitalization of Downtown Brea. His latest venture is a Costco on 200 and 250 S. Kraemer Boulevard.
According to Brea4All’s review of public records cited in legal filings, communications between Manley and Assistant City Manager Killebrew began months before the council released its official economic development agreement.
The group is claiming that the text message disclosures are incomplete, missing time stamps and aren’t in chronological order, making the public records difficult to interpret.
Brea4All’s ongoing litigation seeks an order requiring the city to produce the outstanding records and to pay the costs of the lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees.
“The City produced incomplete and scrambled PDF screenshots of the messages, despite [our] demand for sequential messages in their native format,” reads the petition. “The City’s refusal to produce complete correspondence in a legible format undermines the CPRA and California’s policy of government transparency.”
Initial scrutiny emerged following the approval of a 50-year Economic Development Agreement that would direct a majority of Costco’s generated sales tax to Manley and his trust.
Over the 50 years, Manley would get about $77 million of generated tax revenue, while the city would receive about $50 million over the same time period. Another $7 million would go to the city’s senior center.
The city would not receive a majority of the generated sales tax until year 30 of the agreement.
In an email to Voice of OC, Manley said the project will be a great benefit to the city, adding that he’s receiving a large portion of the revenue because of his substantial investments to get the project started in the first place.
“With Costco, we have an amazing community benefit that also will provide long term financial benefits to the City, as well as 5% annually for the Brea Senior Center to continue providing well past my lifetime,” he wrote.
“There is tremendous benefit,” he added. “And if I and Costco were not investing over $100,000,000, this would not be possible.”
Brea4All claims in their writ of mandate that the public was denied meaningful access to information about the negotiations and the city’s decision-making process before the city council approved the agreement.
Legal filings also claim the records released are “missing key portions of Mr. Killebrew and Mr. Manley’s correspondence.”
Liz Pharis, public information officer for Brea, didn’t offer many specific comments regarding the case.
“The City [of Brea] has no additional comments to offer at this time,” she wrote in an email, adding that to date, the city has “provided responses related to the Public Records Act request and supplied over 15,000 pages of records, which was previously reported by the Voice of OC in a September 2, 2026 article.”
According to public records reviewed by Voice of OC, on May 5, 2025, Manley texted Killebrew expressing his interest in acquiring the property and developing a Costco store alongside a major housing development on an adjoining property.
After saying he would meet with property owner Hines that same day, Manley texted Killebrew, “I want Costco!!” and “Hines owes me big time.”
The legal filings allege that on the following day, Manley exchanged emails with Killebrew about the property’s layout and potential truck routes for the proposed Costco. Also on May 6, Phil Berry of Commercial West Brokerage, Inc., submitted a letter of intent to Hines on Manley’s behalf expressing his interest in purchasing the property, according to the legal filings.
Brea4All argues that the city’s interactions with Manley warrant examination because Manley was not a bidder in the formal sales process.
The group alleges that, after Hines entertained proposals from finalist bidders, the city’s communications focused exclusively on Manley, even though other parties had expressed interest in developing a Costco.
“Costco agents decided in the onset after talking that they were only going to work with me, and no other bidders were even calling them, so that was a simple issue,” Manley wrote in an email. “In the bidding process, there is no obligation for a city to tell other bidders what the competition is doing, so that really isn’t anything to explain.”
At an April 27 meeting with Mayor Cecilia Hupp, Killebrew and Brea4All members, Killebrew reportedly stated that the city had not discussed a potential tax-sharing agreement with property bidders, according to the petition.
The legal petition argues that the available communications raise questions about whether Manley received unique access to city officials and whether the city adequately considered other potential developers or proposals.
Will Brea Hand Over More Public Records?
Brea4All alleges that the city violated the California Public Records Act and Article I, Section 3, of the California Constitution, which protects the public’s right of access to government information.
The legal filings claim that the city failed to search thoroughly for records responsive to the group’s requests and failed to disclose all non-exempt public records. It further argues that the incomplete records withheld do not qualify for an exemption under public records laws.
Brea4All’s ongoing legal action asks the court to compel the City of Brea to provide the requested records within 10 days of the court’s order. The group is also seeking litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
The legal petition identifies two public records requests and states that the respondents have abandoned the request for outstanding records associated with both requests.
For Brea4All, the issue is about more than recovering missing messages.
Leading advocate of Brea4All, resident Mark Strom, points to the “glaring problems with the completeness and readability of the messages” and is “troubled that Mr. Killebrew’s public statements about pivotal text messages appear inconsistent with the surrounding record.”
The group argues that meaningful public oversight depends on access to complete records, especially when a city is negotiating a long-term agreement that could direct tens of millions of dollars in public revenue to a private developer.
Manley maintains that no laws were broken.
“I fully understand the sensitivity and impact when something new happens after 40 years being one way,” Manley wrote in an email. “It was done in a perfectly proper way, and was overseen and documented by numerous attorneys from multiple law firms.”
There’s a status conference scheduled for Dec. 3 at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, according to the Orange County Superior Court.
“Our view all along has been that if the City believes nothing is amiss, then the sunlight we’re seeking should allay citizen concerns and rebuild trust,” Strom wrote.
“And if there are issues, the City can take appropriate action. Either is a positive outcome, but transparency is the first step.”
The Collegiate News Service is a partnership between Voice of OC and local student journalists. Contact the Collegiate News Service Editor Angelina Hicks at ahicks@voiceofoc.org
