The Hart City Council was presented Resolution 2025-32 at their Sept. 23 meeting, which would consent to the sale of the Ceres Solutions property at 3 E. Main St. to S Hegg Real Estate, as presented, at the recommendation from the TIFA Board.
At the time TIFA closed submission for proposals for the Ceres property by the extended deadline of Aug. 12, 2025, the board had only received two proposals for the property, one of which was withdrawn, and another proposal was submitted past the deadline. This ostensibly made the only valid proposal that of S Hegg Real Estate, which would see the property developed into parking for the planned conversion of the 112 E. Main St. property (Hegg’s Furniture Store) into an event venue. Also in the proposed plan for the Ceres property were townhomes and duplexes, greenspace and the preservation of the historically valued old mill building as a storage or retail space.
There was some initial confusion amongst TIFA board members as to whether the initial vote on Aug. 19 had actually approved the sale of the property, as the proposal was approved by the majority of the present members but failed to garner the majority of the overall TIFA board. This was due to the absence and abstaining of a number of voting members. Members Caleb Griffis and Amy Trudell were absent, and Scott Hegg abstained, while Bill Hegg, Gale Goldberg, Deb Windell and Tracey Lipps voted yes, and Maria Rosas voted no.
At the time, the proposal was determined to have failed, but following the decision’s challenge and reviewing the board’s 2024 bylaws, the meeting’s minutes were changed to reflect the approval of the property sale, though some members still had misgivings regarding the “quick” decision and perceived lack of consideration of the community’s vision for the Ceres property.
Following the approval of the sale from TIFA, the property would then move to the Hart City Council for consent of sale at their regular council meeting this past Tuesday, in accordance with the approved 2024 TIFA bylaws.
At the Tuesday meeting, Stacie Hegg of S Hegg Real Estate presented, asking for the city council to “allow TIFA to do their job, as the state mandates, and allow their vote to stand.”
This was in reference to their questioning of why TIFA would need consent from the city to sell the Ceres property in the first place. Hegg referenced several other properties sold, which did not go before council for consent. She, likewise, spoke of S Hegg’s interest in the development of the property from their perspectives as local residents as well as business owners - wishing to see that a local property be purchased by local developers.
Of S Hegg’s credentials and development intentions, Hegg said, “We have an architect, contractors and motivation to make this property useful for the city again. We are not asking for a handout. Our offer was more than the price TIFA purchased it for, not that it matters. No other proposal had any monetary offer at all.” She also stated that, should the decision by the council not “go [their] way,” S Hegg Real Estate would take their investment elsewhere.
Following Hegg, Senior Redevelopment Services Director for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation Daniel Leonard - one of the agencies that helped to develop the initial marketing plan for the Ceres property in early 2024 - offered an alternative perspective for the potential of the Ceres property proposals. While Leonard said that “the fact that you have a proposal before you is a great first step, and frankly, it’s one that we are pretty excited about in terms of just having someone step up,” he also discussed similar proposals from communities like Hart and the failures the initial proposals made in the process of redevelopment. He advised the council to keep themselves open to different options, local and otherwise.
Once the meeting had moved forward to deciding action item Resolution 2025-32, Interim City Manager Nichole Kleiner said, “I think what was shocking about this [approval] from TIFA was the amount of time that we put into the community vision, what we wanted to see and how swiftly the action was taken without any parameters…I don’t think we need to completely disregard S Hegg’s proposal… but maybe we could consider some discussion where there’s a development agreement.”
Council Member Andrew Mullen came prepared with a letter addressing S Hegg Real Estate, regarding what he felt were deficiencies in the proposal submission. Mullen stated that the proposal from S Hegg “did not meet the minimum submission criteria for proposal.” He, likewise, took issue that “concept plans, drawings or renderings were not provided. Development experience information was nebulous and did not include completed project costs, completion dates or references. Fiscal capacity was merely stated as fact, and the requested supporting documents…were not provided. No resumes were provided. No timeline was provided…in fact, you requested the opposite by asking for the property without contingencies.”
Mullen went on to explain that, just because the other proposals for the property were not acceptable, it did not mean that the S Hegg proposal won by default, but rather that the Ceres property should have gone back out for submission. He also noted that stakeholders beyond TIFA were not given enough time to review and consider the proposals before the Aug. 19 TIFA meeting was called.
Mullen did commend the Hegg family’s positive impacts on the city in the past, and how “it is because of [the Hegg family’s] history and reputation that the actions taken in regard to the Ceres property to seemingly undermine public priorities and expectations came as such a shock to myself and many others in the community.”
He also noted that it was possible more local business owners, developers and individuals would have proposed projects for the Ceres property, but that the community misunderstood the nature of the proposal. Mullen shared that local interested parties believed that the project was a request for bids for an already established project, rather than a general proposal following the guidelines set out by TIFA.
Overall, Mullen said, “I am not opposed to your proposal in general. The property as it stands now is blighted, and something needs to happen, and quickly. However, the way you went about this whole process is objectionable, and did not even meet the basic submission criteria for a proposal to the TIFA board.” He strongly encouraged S Hegg Real Estate to withdraw their current proposal and resubmit once TIFA reopened the submission process.
Other council members who shared their concerns over the project were Jim Cunningham - who objected to the vague nature of the proposal submitted by S Hegg, lack of contingencies and the low sale price of the property - and Mayor Amanda Klotz, who agreed with Mullen over the community’s confusion over the nature of the project and that more time was needed to consider all possible proposals.
The board, all of who m were in attendance, unanimously voted “no” to consent of the property sale, with the recommendation for the TIFA board to reopen proposal submission for at least a month and to put out another press release, which would, hopefully, alert a greater number of developers and business owners to the opportunity.
Immediately following the meeting, the Echo asked Stacie Hegg if S Hegg Real Estate was planning to resubmit their project proposal, to which she replied, “that’s something we [at S Hegg Real Estate] have to discuss.”
