Thrive
Tangerine Plaza developers need more time, money
The city “can’t afford to keep kicking the can down the road.”
Persistent issues continue plaguing years-long efforts to redevelop Tangerine Plaza, a city-owned strip mall in South St. Petersburg that housed the area’s only grocery store until 2017.
Sugar Hill Group, which submitted its first proposal for the embattled site in 2020, is now requesting $22.3 million in public funding and a one-year extension to meet city requirements. Mayor Ken Welch’s administration is recommending that the City Council approve the additional time at a Dec. 11 meeting.
In June 2024, council members narrowly approved offering the group 18 additional months to secure funding and a grocer in a 5-3 vote. According to the Dec. 11 agenda, the developers have yet to fulfill either stipulation.
The deal will terminate if the council rejects the extension and Sugar Hill fails to meet its obligations by the Jan. 2 deadline. Councilmember Corey Givens Jr, whose district includes the underserved area, said Tuesday that the city “can’t afford to keep kicking the can down the road.”
“I was skeptical, but hopeful, that Sugar Hill would be able to secure financing and a reputable grocer for the Tangerine Plaza redevelopment,” Givens said. “However, it does not appear that either of the two are in place.”
Welch restarted a redevelopment process that began under former Mayor Rick Kriseman in July 2022. The city selected Sugar Hill’s previously estimated $37 million proposal to build affordable housing and provide a community grocer at 1794 22nd St. S.
The team includes Rev. Louis Murphy, senior pastor at Mt. Zion Progressive Ministry; Roy Binger, CEO of Binger Financial Services; and Oliver Gross, president of Miami-based New Urban Development. Murphy could not immediately be reached for comment.
He spoke on behalf of the group to the council in June 2024. “We’re going to make it happen,” Murphy pledged.
“Those of you who didn’t vote for it, just know that we’re going to show you that we are more than capable of turning our community around.”
Evolving plans
The development team expanded the project’s residential scope by roughly 62% in early July, with less than six months to meet an increasingly impatient city’s supposedly final deadline. “It’s an important project,” Welch said at the time.
“And the January timeline for the next step is very important.”
According to documents obtained by the Catalyst, the group has sought state approval to build 72 new units through the Live Local Act. Sugar Hill had agreed to build 115 apartments and 10,000 square feet of total retail space, with at least 3,000 square feet dedicated to a neighborhood market.
The Dec. 11 agenda states that Sugar Hill sent the city a letter of intent in mid-October to exercise its lease or purchase option. If the group can secure funding and a grocer, they would enter a $100,000 annual lease for 75 years, with 24 months of waived payments.
Once redeveloped, Sugar Hill can buy the property, previously valued at $1.84 million, for $1.5 million. The group requested a one-year extension of the option period Oct. 30.
Letters sent in November assumed that the city would provide Sugar Hill $11.16 million in South St. Petersburg Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) funding. The group has also requested $11.16 million from Pinellas County.
A previous rendering of Sugar Hill Group’s proposed development. Image provided.
The developers offered to allocate 56 housing units for residents earning up to 60% of the area median income. They would cap 130 at 80%.
However, five of 11 “required documents in the application are placeholder submittals,” according to the agenda. In addition, city staff informed Sugar Hill that its funding request was “not possible.”
Any city subsidies will require a review of Sugar Hill’s other resources and the council’s approval. The agenda states that Pinellas County is “generally supportive” of the group’s $11.16 million request – if the city provides gap funding.
Sugar Hill is now “addressing the remaining comments to the site plan” and “intends to provide the city with a commitment letter from a grocer.” Staff wrote that the developers would also submit a building permit package and apply for low-income housing tax credits.
Givens noted the surrounding community has lacked access to a grocery store since a Walmart Neighborhood Market shuttered in 2017. He believes that reopening the proposal process would “move this redevelopment forward and help to solve the food insecurity crisis in this vulnerable part of our city.”
Councilmember Deborah Figgs-Sanders said Tuesday that she prefers to hear a project presentation Dec. 11 before forming an opinion on Sugar Hill’s request. “I love it when the council has those in-depth conversations – more comes out,” she added.
“In today’s economy … anything is possible.”
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
December 3, 2025at10:06 am
I hope that Mayor Welch will move on to the next viable candidate for the Tangerine Plaza venture. Sugar Hill did not have funds when they submitted their proposal. They have no funds now and will probably not have any in the near future. Please do Not put any of our hard earned Taxpayer funds to assist Sugar Hill in this project. Closed since 2017 and still no viable tenant or owner???REALLY????
Donna Kostreva
December 3, 2025at11:17 am
I agree completely. Thank you for posting!
Ray Tampa
December 3, 2025at4:10 am
This whole matter revolves around Welch’s failed leadership, poor judgement, and his mismanagement of the city’s resources. The SUGAR Hill GROUP has the right to request extension after extension. That is NOT the problem. The problem comes with the mayor’s handling of those request.
Robert Marro
December 3, 2025at9:06 am
Welch will approve anything no matter the cost to St. Pete as long as someone mentions “affordable housing” in their proposal. This is not a good deal, and Sugar Hill will drag this on until Welch agrees to fund the whole project with our money.
He (welch) hasn’t a clue what he’s doing.
Steven Sullivan
December 3, 2025at9:15 am
Ray Tampa what failures are you referring to? Mayor Welch has nothing to do with the failure of this group to develop a feasible financial structure or raise the funding without significant public funding. He has honored thing ongoing requests for extensions with council. Make your dislike for Mayor Welch felt at the voting both and not spouting misinformation on a public social platform. I think he has been too patient and lenient with the opportunity to perform
JAMES GILLESPIE
December 2, 2025at8:56 pm
working since 1917 is not a good example. $22 million is expensive given the time lapse. is there a more productive, experienced and proven record team for the project? the intent is ok but not results. no one can dispute there is need but proof of execution is zero.
Lauren Lopez
December 2, 2025at6:00 pm
Just say no. Sugar Hill has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines or secure funding. Quit giving them chance after chance and more of our tax money. The writing is on the wall.