CRA trustees accept YoMama's proposal for Armory redevelopment after heated community hearing

Trustees of the Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency on April 20 accepted a responsive proposal from St. Benedict’s Holdings LLC—an affiliate of YoMama’s Foods—to redevelop the former Armory at 706 North Missouri Avenue and authorized staff to negotiate a development, purchase and sale agreement.

The applicant’s pitch, delivered by counsel Katie Cole and CEO David Hhabib, proposed an adaptive reuse of the Armory for a logistics, distribution and light‑manufacturing campus tied to YoMama’s Foods operations across the street. Cole told trustees the proposal met the RFN’s minimum requirements including a $2 million acquisition offer and included plans to “restore the original building” and make facade and site improvements rather than demolish the structure.

Hhabib described a multi‑million dollar commitment and job creation promises. “This would more than double our employment numbers with a $65,000 median salary,” he said, adding the company expected a roughly $5 million total capital investment and planned workforce development partnerships with St. Petersburg College and local programs.

Supporters at the meeting said the project would convert a long tax‑exempt property into one paying ad valorem taxes and produce immediate incremental revenue for the North Greenwood CRA. Staff and the applicant emphasized alignment with the CRA plan’s economic development and job‑creation goals, noting the site lies in an industrial emphasis area intended for reuse and private reinvestment.

But the proposal drew sustained public opposition during a lengthy citizen‑comment period. Dozens of North Greenwood residents and local leaders urged trustees to reopen the solicitation, saying they had been blindsided by the sale process and were not adequately included. “We were not given the opportunity to be at the table,” said Kimberly Brown, a Clearwater resident, describing community sentiment that the process lacked adequate notification and engagement. Several speakers warned the sale raised gentrification and displacement risks for a historically Black neighborhood.

Trustees discussed the competing priorities at length: several praised the certainty of jobs and immediate tax increments the proposal could produce; others acknowledged shortcomings in how the public had been informed and urged staff to negotiate protections and community benefits into any agreement. Trustees ultimately moved to accept the respondent as responsive and to authorize staff to negotiate the purchase and development agreement for trustee consideration. The motion passed and trustees directed staff to report back with negotiated terms.

What happens next: staff will negotiate a purchase and sale agreement and related legal instruments and bring the draft contract back to the trustees for final approval. Trustees and community members said they expect negotiated terms to include community‑benefit commitments and protections reflecting the concerns voiced at the hearing.