Rakesh Madhava

March 20, 2026

Saugatuck City Council City of Saugatuck 102 Butler Street Saugatuck, Michigan 49453

Re: Request for Council Intervention — Extraordinary Circumstances Determination, STR Licenses CSTR-240021 and CSTR-240024, 534 St. Joseph Street

Dear Members of the City Council:

My name is Rakesh Madhava. I am the sole owner of 534 St. Joseph Street, a property I have cherished for nearly twenty years. I write to respectfully request that the Council review the March 5, 2026 determination letter issued by the City's outside counsel, Jacob Witte of FSBR Law, and direct the enforcing officer, Grayson Moore, to reconsider his extraordinary circumstances determination under Section 99.64(B) of the City Code, as amended by Ordinance 260209-A.

Mr. Witte's letter is a thorough statement of the City's legal position as currently applied, and I do not ask the Council to find fault with it. What I do ask is whether the circumstances here — taken as a whole — represent the kind of extraordinary situation the provision was designed to address. I believe they do, and I submit this letter to explain why.

I am submitting this letter together with a supporting letter from Kevin Tringali of Bella Vita Vacation Rentals, my local agent, and a letter from Jennifer Pope, my former coowner. Mr. Tringali's letter is particularly significant: he explicitly accepts responsibility for his office's internal clerical error and confirms that I had no knowledge of it and no reason to suspect it.

I. A Deliberate Compliance Structure That Unforeseeable Circumstances Defeated

I submitted the STR application in April 2024 during an active divorce proceeding, fully aware that this was a complex new licensing framework. I deliberately constructed a multi-layered approach to compliance: I listed my own contact information on the application, retained a professional local agent with eighteen years of experience managing over forty licensed properties in this community, and relied on the City's own notification processes as a further safeguard — though I understand the City has no such obligation under the ordinance. I structured things this way because I understood that an ownership transition mid-process created the potential for gaps, and I wanted to guard against them. What I could not have foreseen was that those gaps would fall between every layer of protection I had put in place.

The City, going beyond any legal requirement, made a good-faith effort to transmit the license at issuance. I am not alleging the City had an obligation it failed to meet. I am noting that even this voluntary effort was defeated by the same chain of circumstances that ultimately led to the missed renewal. Approximately 95% of STR holders successfully renew their licenses — which means that failures are, by definition, statistically rare. My situation did not arise from owner inattention or systemic neglect. It arose from a precise convergence of circumstances that fell between every layer of protection I had put in place. That is not ordinary. That is extraordinary.

II. My License Was the Warning That Protected Every Other STR Holder

My license expired on July 5, 2025. The City's August 1, 2025 notification to me and Mr. Tringali that the license had expired was, to the best of my knowledge, among the first such notifications the City issued under the new ordinance's renewal framework. Before that notification, there was evident confusion among STR holders about the front-loaded renewal window — which requires application 30 to 60 days before expiration, not after. My situation made that confusion visible.

That notification triggered an immediate response across the STR community. Other license holders, alerted by what happened to me, urgently examined their own renewal status and filed applications they might not otherwise have known were due. The amendment the Council subsequently adopted — with its explicit acknowledgment of 'apparent confusion surrounding annual renewal deadlines' and its narrow amnesty window for those who had filed after the deadline but before expiration — was the direct legislative response to what my case exposed. The confusion was not mine alone. My property was the one that surfaced it.

Had my license expiration date fallen later in the calendar, another owner would have been first. That owner would have received the August 1 notification, discovered the

confusion, and the word would have spread. I would have been among those who refiled in time and been eligible for the same amnesty the Council extended to others. The outcome I now face was not determined by my conduct — it was determined entirely by where my license happened to fall in the renewal calendar, a fact I had no knowledge of and no ability to influence.

To deny relief on the basis that I failed to act on information I never received — while extending relief to those who acted only after my situation revealed the problem — is to make my loss the price of the community's benefit. The ordinance the Council adopted is better and more clearly administered today because of what my situation exposed. Every STR holder in this community now understands the renewal window because of what happened to me. I am the only one who received no benefit from that understanding.

The record on this point is unambiguous. Based on my review of available records, all eight of the other properties considered for amnesty at the January 7, 2026 meeting submitted their applications after August 4, 2025 — the date Mr. Tringali and I filed, following the City's August 1 notification that our license had expired. No property filed before that date. August 1, 2025 was also the first time my correct email address — as listed on the original April 2024 application — was used in any STR-specific communication from the City. The Council has access to the complete application record and can confirm this directly. The implication is clear: my notification was not merely the first signal that the renewal system had a problem. It was the event that caused every other affected owner to act. Six of those owners received amnesty. I did not.

III. The Proximate Cause: A Single Clerical Error by a Qualified Professional

The renewal was missed for one reason: Mr. Tringali's office recorded January 7, 2025 — the date they received a copy of the license upon request — as the renewal anniversary, rather than July 5. This was a clerical error, not a pattern of neglect. Mr. Tringali manages renewals successfully across a portfolio of more than forty properties. This property was the singular exception, and he has stepped forward unambiguously to own that mistake and to confirm that I had no knowledge of it.

The City Attorney's letter treats Mr. Tringali's error as mine, on the basis that I authorized him as my agent. I understand the legal basis for that position. But the purpose of the local agent designation is to allow owners to rely on qualified professionals for operational compliance. The standard cannot be that owners must independently audit their agent's work absent any indication of a problem — that would

render the local agent provision meaningless. I was actively copied on compliance communications throughout 2024 and 2025. At no point did anyone indicate anything was amiss.

The City's letter notes that I was subscribed to the City's general email distribution and received routine updates. I do not dispute this. But that fact cuts the other way. An engaged owner who receives regular City communications and sees nothing to suggest a problem with his license has no basis to independently investigate his renewal status. The absence of any alert in those communications was itself a signal that everything was in order. I was relying on the system — including those communications — to surface any problem. The first direct communication I received regarding my STR license specifically was the August 1, 2025 notice that it had expired. That was the moment I learned anything was wrong. I acted within three days.

The ordinance's exclusion of 'reasonably foreseeable circumstances' is also instructive here. The question is not whether, in hindsight, I could have taken additional steps. The question is whether a reasonable owner in my position — who submitted accurate contact information, retained a qualified professional agent, was actively copied on compliance communications, and whose agent received written confirmation from the City's own planning consultants that the property was in good standing — could have foreseen that his license would lapse. The answer is no. I had no signal, at any point, that anything required my direct intervention. The outcome was not reasonably foreseeable. It was the product of a chain of circumstances that fell entirely outside what any reasonable owner in my position would have anticipated.

Consider further: of the 5% of STR holders who fail to renew, the vast majority are owners who simply did not track their obligations. The subset with professional local agents actively engaged in compliance is smaller still. And within that subset, those whose agent's single clerical error was itself caused by circumstances that no owner would reasonably expect in a set of ordinary business and civil relationships — is vanishingly rare. At each layer of analysis, my situation becomes more exceptional. That is what extraordinary means.

IV. The Documented Record

The following facts are not alleged. They are documented in the City's own exhibits, which I have attached with relevant sections marked. City Exhibit 5 has been deliberately omitted from the attachments.

These facts are identified not to assign blame to City staff, but to illustrate the series of interlocking circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable to an owner who had retained and paid a local agent specifically to manage a substantial licensing ordinance requiring expertise, local knowledge, and familiarity with City staff and processes. Taken together, they represent seven unforeseeable circumstances that combined to produce the license expiration.

First. My April 23, 2024 application listed my contact information correctly, including my email address. (City Exhibit 1.) I had no reason to believe this was not reflected in the City's records.

Second. The license issued July 5, 2024 was transmitted to jennifer@theballroom.com — an address not in my application — and to the Bella Vita general inbox. (City Exhibit 2.) Jennifer Pope confirms in her attached letter that she never received it. I received nothing.

Third. The license listed "MADHAVA RAKESH M & POPE JENNIFER" as owner — more than two months after Jennifer Pope's May 1, 2024 quit claim deed, recorded with Allegan County on May 9, 2024, transferred sole ownership to me. (City Exhibit 6.) The City Manager's January 7, 2025 email acknowledged the owner name was incorrectly listed and that staff were looking to correct it — but that email was copied to City staff, not to me. (City Exhibit 3.) The records were not corrected and I was not contacted.

Fourth. Following the transfer of ownership and primary management responsibility to me in May 2024, I had no personal knowledge of the renewal date, nor any confirmation that the license had been updated to reflect the ownership change. I was also unaware of the City's online system for checking expiration dates. This is not offered to suggest the City had any obligation to inform me — it is simply a fact that contributed to the absence of a timely renewal application.

Fifth. Renewal reminder communications sent voluntarily by the City in late December 2024 — efforts the City is to be commended for — also did not reach me directly. I have no record of receiving them. Even this additional layer of outreach did not find me.

Sixth. The first time my email address — as correctly listed on the original application — appears in the email record is August 4, 2025, after the license

had already expired. That notification is what caused the broader STR community to examine their own permits and, in many cases, submit late applications. The fact that my license was the first to surface this issue was entirely coincidental.

Seventh. Mr. Tringali has acknowledged in his letter that the error was solely internal to Bella Vita, that I had not been informed of it, and that I had no reason to believe the renewal required my direct attention.

These seven circumstances, each individually understandable, combined to produce an outcome that was genuinely beyond my control — which is precisely the standard Section 99.64(B) requires the Council to consider.

V. Reliance on the Council's January 7, 2026 Direction

At the January 7, 2026 Council workshop, the Council expressed clear and unambiguous consensus support for amnesty covering the nine STR properties under discussion, including mine. I was present. A Council member specifically acknowledged that people in the room were making business decisions based on what the Council decided that evening. I was one of those people. I am the only one of the nine properties discussed at that meeting who did not receive relief.

My Chicago lease was expiring February 28, 2026. In direct reliance on the Council's representations, I renewed it. I also made travel arrangements to visit my elderly parents, who are facing serious health challenges, and was outside the country for February 2026 — confident reinstatement was underway. When I returned, I learned my property had been excluded from the ordinance as adopted.

I recognize that the Council's intent was to craft a narrow amnesty window for licenses that had not yet expired when late applications were filed. I ask only that the Council consider why my license fell outside that window. The distinction between my property and those that received amnesty is not one of conduct or intent. It is one of calendar timing alone — and as Section II documents, that timing was not within my knowledge or control.

The direct consequence of that exclusion, combined with the lease renewal I made in reliance on the Council's direction, is that I am now financially unable to maintain both

residences. I face the prospect of being forced to sell a home I have owned for twenty years — a home I worked to keep through a complicated change in ownership and responsibilities. I do not believe that outcome reflects the Council's intent, and I am asking the Council to prevent it.

VI. The Enforcing Officer Has Independent Authority to Act

The City's March 5 determination correctly identifies that the amnesty provision under Section 99.58(B)(a) does not apply to this property, because it requires a renewal application filed after the deadline but before expiration — a condition this property does not meet. That finding is not disputed.

What the determination does not address is the separate and broader authority granted to the enforcing officer under the amended Section 99.64(B). That provision, enacted as part of Ordinance 260209-A and published in the Commercial Record on February 19, 2026, authorizes the enforcing officer to excuse compliance with 'the deadlines set forth in this chapter' — not merely the renewal deadline under 99.58(B), but any deadline the chapter contains, including the amnesty application deadline under 99.58(B)(a). The language is broad and unqualified. Nothing in the text limits it to a particular deadline or a particular type of applicant.

The amended ordinance also defines what extraordinary circumstances 'may include' — acts of God, documented medical conditions, military service. That list is illustrative, not exhaustive. The drafters used the word 'may,' not 'shall only.' The enumerated examples do not foreclose other circumstances that satisfy the standard. What the provision does foreclose — specifically and expressly — is circumstances attributable to the license holder or local agent's own actions, inaction, negligence, or neglect; any alleged failure of the City to provide notice; or any other reasonably foreseeable circumstances. The circumstances documented in this letter fall within none of those exclusions.

The date of issuance that determined the expiration sequence was assigned by the City at the time of licensing. It was not chosen, influenced, or foreseeable by the owner. The structural consequence of being first in the expiration sequence — losing both the timely renewal window and, through no fault of conduct, the amnesty window — was not attributable to any action, inaction, negligence, or neglect of the owner or local agent. It was not an alleged failure of the City to provide notice. And it was not a reasonably foreseeable circumstance for any owner applying for an STR license in April 2024. No owner, at the time of application, could have anticipated that the date the City assigned

to their license would determine whether they would have access to remedies that did not yet exist.

The ordinance as amended creates two pathways for an STR license to remain in good standing: timely renewal under 99.58(B), and the amnesty provision under 99.58(B)(a) for those who filed late but before expiration. Both pathways were available to every other owner whose situation came to light after the August 1, 2025 notification. Both were unavailable to this owner — not because of anything he did or failed to do, but because his expiration date preceded the notification that made those pathways accessible to others. All five properties that ultimately received amnesty under Ordinance 260209-A filed their applications after August 4, 2025 — after news of this property's expiration spread through the STR community. Those owners had access to the amnesty window because this owner's situation warned them in time.

The visible benefit to the community is measurable in those five amnesty grants. What cannot be measured — but can reasonably be inferred — is the number of STR holders who, upon learning that licenses were being actively enforced with hard expiration dates and a front-loaded renewal window, quietly examined their own status and filed timely renewals they might not otherwise have known were due. Those renewals appear in the ordinary renewal record, indistinguishable from any other timely filing. But they represent a real and additional community benefit that flows directly from this property's situation being the first to make the enforcement reality of the new ordinance visible. The ordinance is more effectively enforced today, across the entire STR community, because of what happened to this owner.

No amendment to the ordinance is required to grant relief here. No new language is needed. The enforcing officer already possesses the authority under Section 99.64(B) to excuse the deadline at issue upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. The specific combination of circumstances that produced this outcome — a license expiration date assigned by the City that placed this owner first in a sequence whose consequences could not have been foreseen by any party — is unique to this property and will not recur. A finding of extraordinary circumstances here sets no broad precedent. It addresses a situation that, by its very nature, can only happen once.

VII. What I Am Asking For

City staff and the City Attorney's letter confirm that the Council has the authority to direct action on this matter or to amend the ordinance. I respectfully request that the Council direct Grayson Moore, as enforcing officer, to reconsider the extraordinary circumstances determination under Section 99.64(B) in light of the full documented

record. Alternatively, I request that the Council exercise its legislative authority to extend the amnesty provision to this property.

I am attaching the following in support:

Letter from Kevin Tringali, Bella Vita Vacation Rentals — accepting responsibility for the clerical error and confirming I had no knowledge of it

Letter from Jennifer Pope, former co-owner — confirming the May 1, 2024 ownership transfer and that she never received the July 5, 2024 license

City Exhibit 1 — April 23, 2024 STR Application confirming my correct contact information

City Exhibit 2 — July 5, 2024 City Manager email showing the license was transmitted to an address not in my application

City Exhibit 3 — January 7, 2025 email chain with the City Manager's acknowledgment of the incorrect owner listing

City Exhibit 6 — STR License CSTR-240021 showing Jennifer Pope listed as coowner after the quit claim deed

Conclusion

The STR ordinance serves real community interests, and its orderly enforcement matters. I do not ask the Council to weaken it or to create broad exceptions. I ask something narrower: that the owner whose situation served as the warning that protected the rest of the community not be the only one left unprotected by the response.

My license expiration was the warning that revealed the confusion surrounding renewal deadlines under the new ordinance. Other STR holders, alerted by what happened to me, were able to act in time. The amendment the Council adopted was the direct response to what my situation exposed. The community is better served by the ordinance today because of it. I am the only one who received no benefit from that improvement.

I retained a local agent precisely so that the responsibilities of compliance would rest with a qualified professional. To hold me responsible for my agent's clerical mistake — when I had no knowledge of it and no practical means of preventing it — is to render the

March 19, 2026 Saugatuck City Council City of Saugatuck, Michigan Re: STR Licenses CSTR-240021 and CSTR-240024 – 534 St. Joseph Street

Dear Members of the Council, My name is Kevin Tringali. I am the owner of Bella Vita Vacation Rentals, located at 133 Butler Street in Saugatuck, and I have served as the local agent for the STR licenses at 534 St. Joseph Street since the property was first licensed as well as more than 40 other properties in Southwest Michigan and have done so for 18 years. I write in support of Rakesh Madhava's request for a hardship exemption and license reinstatement, and to provide the Council with a factual account of the circumstances from my perspective. The Prior Management Arrangement Prior to the finalization of Mr. Madhava's divorce on May 17, 2024, Jennifer Pope was the primary contact between the property ownership and my office. Ms. Pope handled rental scheduling, communications, and day-to-day coordination on behalf of the joint ownership. When Mr. Madhava assumed sole ownership following the divorce, the transition of that management relationship to him directly was still underway. The contact infrastructure in place did not include Mr. Madhava's email or phone - despite this information being the only contact provided on the original STR application. For reasons unclear to us the city was using an incorrect email for Ms. Pope. The Internal Filing Error When the City Manager sent a copy of the STR license to my office on January 7, 2025, in response to my request, my office manager logged that date as the renewal anniversary for the property. This was a genuine error made in good faith. We understood the license to run on a January-to-January basis from that point forward and calendared the renewal accordingly. It was not until August 2025, when the City Manager contacted us to advise that the license had expired on July 5, 2025, that we understood the error. I want to be clear that Mr. Madhava had no knowledge of this internal filing decision and no reason to suspect it had been made incorrectly. The management of license renewal dates was within my office's responsibilities as local agent. The error was mine, not his. The Triggering Event for STR Holders The City's August 1, 2025, notification to me that the license had expired was the first expiration of any of the licenses for the properties in my portfolio. Understandably, I acted and thoroughly reviewed the properties for which I acted as the local agent, and I contacted other property

managers and license holders of STRs in the community. The irony is that Mr. Madhava's property was the only one not granted amnesty, despite his license expiration being the triggering event that caused the increased compliance among the community and greater awareness of the ordinance requirements. The January 7, 2026, Council Meeting I was present at the January 7, 2026, Council workshop. The discussion that evening was clear — the Council expressed strong consensus support for amnesty for the nine STR properties under discussion, including 534 St. Joseph Street. I left that meeting with the understanding that amnesty would be granted to Mr. Madhava’s property. I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the ordinance as ultimately adopted did not extend to 534 St. Joseph Street. I continue to believe that the extraordinary circumstances around Mr. Madhava's property — including the ownership transition, the date of initial license expiration, the gap in license delivery, and my office's internal filing error, none of which were within Mr. Madhava's knowledge or control and would not be reasonable to expect him to have foreseen these events — warrant the relief the Council indicated it intended to provide. I am available to answer any questions the Council may have and to provide any additional information that would be helpful. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Vacation Rentals 133 Butler Street Saugatuck, Michigan 49453

Saugatuck City Council: My name is Jennifer Pope. I co-owned 534 St. Joseph with my ex-husband, Rakesh Madhava, until our divorce was finalized on May 17, 2024, at which point Rakesh took sole possession. Prior to May 17, 2024, I was the primary contact for Kevin Tringali at Bella Vita for rental scheduling and management. After that date, Rakesh assumed those responsibilities. The city issued the STR license on July 5, 2024; however, I never received it. Upon reviewing the attached transmission, I confirmed the city used an incorrect email address rather than my correct address, jennifer@theredballoon. Had I received the license, I would have forwarded it to Rakesh as part of our asset separation process. Please let me know if I can provide additional information as the City Council considers this renewal. Best,

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Friday, July 5, 2024 6:46 PM jennifer@theballroom. 534 St. Joseph STR License - 534 St. Joseph - 7-5-24.pdf; STR License - 534 St. Joseph ADU - 7-5-24.pdf

Hello, I was notified 534 St. Joseph main home and ADU passed inspection. Attached is the STR license. Please note the maximum occupants and expiration date. Here is a link to the Good Neighbor Guide to share with your visitors: https://www.saugatuckcity.com/uploads/1/3/3/9/133977444/copy_of_good_neighbor_guide__2_.pdf Thank you,

Ryan Cummins City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box 86 Saugatuck, MI 49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

We are updating all our files as we head into 2025. We know 534 St. Joseph was recertified back in July of 2024 however I don’t recall seeing an actuall certification document? Can we get one sent to us for our records? Thank you Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate / Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty

From: David Jirousek [mailto:david@horizon-planning.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 2:12 PM To: kevin Cc: Ryan Cummins; Kyle Salay Subject: Re: 534 St. Joseph-recertification

KevinPlease disregard the notice. The subject property has a final permit, and there are no current violations.

David M. Jirousek, MCP, AICP Principal – Community Planner 616-540-1794

From: Kyle Salay <kyle@horizon-planning.com> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at 12:23 PM To: David Jirousek <david@ Subject: Fwd: 534 St. Joseph-recertification

Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@ Date: July 10, 2024 at 11:44:05 AM EDT To: Kyle Salay <kyle Cc: Rakesh Madhava <rmadhava Subject: 534 St. Joseph-recertification

Hi Kyle, 2

Hi Kevin, I want to make sure one thing is clarified as you mentioned your office actually received a copy of the license in January. The City sent Bella Vita a copy of the license via e-mail in July 2024. Attached is another copy of that e-mail. The license was attached to that e-mail and states the expiration date. The e-mail also noted you should keep track of it. You acknowledged back in January that it was recertified in July 2024 but wanted another copy of the license. On the January response, I attached a copy of the July 2024 e-mail that was previously sent. Last year, the City also sent owners and agents an e-mail and letter with instructions on how to check expiration dates online. How to check expiration dates is on our website as well. As we discussed on the phone, you believe under Section 99.58(E) that you have 30 days to correct this. As I explained, that provision relates to deficiencies in a renewal application that is submitted timely. Section 99.58(B) identifies when renewal applications are due: 99.58(B) The license holder or local agent may apply for a renewed license by submitting a renewal application to the enforcing officer no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date that the license is set to expire, along with the license renewal fee established by the City’s fee schedule. Renewal applications may be submitted no later than five (5) calendar days after this deadline, subject to a late fee established by resolution of the City Council. Renewal applications submitted after this five (5) calendar day grace period by any amount of time shall be deemed untimely and shall not be processed by the City, and the short-term rental license shall be deemed expired. As you can see, an untimely renewal application shall not be processed by the City, which is the case here. As we discussed, only the City Council can change the ordinance and staff has to carry out what is currently in place. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you,

Ryan Cummins

City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box 86 Saugatuck, MI 49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

www. <image001.png> <image002.jpg>

From: Ryan Cummins [mailto:rcummins@saugatuckcity.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2025 5:01 PM To: Kevin Tringali; Kevin Tringali; rakesh Subject: 534 St. Joseph

Hello, Our system shows that your short-term rental license expired on 7/5/25. The unit cannot be rented without a STR license. Further information about short-term rentals can be found here: https://www.saugatuckcity.com/short-term-rentals.html Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you,

Ryan Cummins City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box 86 Saugatuck, MI 49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

<Letter to STR Owners and Agents 12-23-24.pdf> <mime-attachment> <mime-attachment> <mime-attachment> <mime-attachment>

March 28, 2026 Saugatuck City Council City of Saugatuck 102 Butler Street Saugatuck, Michigan 49453 Re: Proposed Amendment to Ordinance 260209-A, Section 99.58(B)(a) — Single Condition Revision to Amnesty Eligibility, STR Licenses CSTR-240021 and CSTR240024, 534 St. Joseph Street Dear Members of the City Council: My name is Rakesh Madhava. I am the sole owner of 534 St. Joseph Street. The Council has my March 21, 2026 submission requesting reconsideration of the extraordinary circumstances determination under Section 99.64(B), which I incorporate by reference. I respectfully request time to discuss this supplemental proposal at the April 8 workshop along with my previous submission, with a view to adoption at the April 13 regular meeting. I maintain that this Council has the authority and responsibility to direct staff to find that extraordinary circumstances exist in my situation, as documented in my March 21 submission. I am also proposing a separate legislative avenue by which the Council may rectify this situation directly, without requiring any determination by staff or outside counsel. I also want to state plainly for the record: at the January 7, 2026 workshop, this Council represented to me and to the community that it was granting amnesty to the affected STR license holders so that the City and license holders could start with a clean slate after the ordinance was amended. A majority of this Council believed that commitment covered all nine properties under discussion. I am one of the properties that did not receive relief under the amendment as adopted. This proposal gives the Council a narrow, principled path to honor that commitment — one that does not weaken the ordinance, does not overturn any staff determination, and is fully consistent with the ordinance’s own internal logic. I propose a single amendment to one condition within the existing amnesty provision of Section 99.58(B)(a). The change requires no new subsection, no new administrative structure, and no alteration to any other provision of the ordinance or the amendment. It does not overturn any determination made by staff or legal counsel. It addresses a narrow gap in the amnesty framework — one that by coincidence excluded my property — and it does so in a way that is fully consistent with the ordinance's own internal logic.

The Existing Provision Section 99.58(B)(a) of Ordinance 260209-A provides that an owner whose license lapsed may reapply if, among other conditions, the license holder submitted a renewal application to the City after the renewal deadline but before the license expired. This condition was designed to capture owners who made a good-faith effort to renew but missed the front-loaded application window. My license expired July 5, 2025. The City notified me of the expiration on August 1, 2025. I filed a renewal application on August 4, 2025 — three days after notification. Because my expiration preceded the City's notification, I was unable to file before the license expired, and I therefore do not meet the current condition. Every property that ultimately received amnesty filed after that same notification — they were able to file before their licenses expired only because my situation alerted them in time. The Proposed Change I propose that condition 2) of Section 99.58(B)(a) be revised as follows. The current “amnesty” language reads: a. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter to the contrary, an application for a short-term rental license may be submitted by an owner who previously held a short-term rental license if the following applies: 1) the short-term rental license at issue expired between April 24, 2025, and the effective date of this Ordinance; and 2) the license holder submitted a renewal application to the City after the renewal deadline but before the license expired; and 3) the untimely renewal application otherwise satisfied all applicable requirements of the City Code. In such circumstances, the license holder may apply for a short-term license no later than five (5) calendar days after the effective date of this Ordinance. Such applications may be processed and a short-term rental license issued (effective on the date of issuance), subject to the payment of the late fee set forth herein and satisfaction of all other requirements of the City Code. The proposed language would read (proposed changed emphasized): a. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter to the contrary, an application for a short-term rental license may be submitted by an owner who previously held a short-term rental license if the following applies: 1) the short-term rental license at issue expired between April 24, 2025, and the effective date of this Ordinance; and 2) the license holder submitted a renewal application to the City after the renewal deadline but before the license expired; or within 30 days of City’s written notification of expiration, consistent with the cure period established under Section 99.58(E); and 3) the untimely renewal application otherwise satisfied all applicable requirements of the City Code. In such circumstances, the license holder may apply for a short-term license no later than five (5) calendar days after the effective date of this Ordinance. Such applications may be processed and a short-term rental license issued (effective on the date of issuance), subject

to the payment of the late fee set forth herein and satisfaction of all other requirements of the City Code. That is the entirety of the proposed change. All other conditions of Section 99.58(B)(a) remain unchanged, including the requirement that the license expired within the defined pre-ordinance period and that the application otherwise satisfied all applicable requirements of the City Code, including payment of the applicable late fee.

Why This Change Is Sound Section 99.58(E) already establishes that when the City notifies an owner of a deficiency in the renewal process, the owner has 30 days to respond and cure. An expired license is a deficiency in the renewal process. Extending the same 30-day cure period to City notification of expiration is consistent with the ordinance’s own treatment of every other renewal deficiency. It does not create a new standard — it applies an existing one consistently across all renewal deficiencies. All requirements of the chapter continue to apply. The hard stop date remains in place. No ongoing exception is created and no future renewal cycle is affected. The amendment is administratively self-executing. If adopted at the April 13 regular meeting, it takes effect upon publication in the Commercial Record — the same mechanism by which Ordinance 260209-A itself took effect. Upon publication, the existing five-day filing window reopens from the effective date of this amendment, exactly as it did when the original amnesty provision was published. No new machinery is required. The Council has done this before. The amnesty framework as currently drafted produced an exclusion that was not publicly deliberated. This amendment corrects it. The 30-day window is not arbitrary — it mirrors the cure period the ordinance already provides under Section 99.58(E). An owner who receives City notification and responds within 30 days has demonstrated exactly the good-faith conduct that provision was designed to reward. The preamble of Ordinance 260209-A describes its purpose as addressing a failure to timely submit a renewal application — not permanent extinguishment based on calendar position. Rejecting this revision does not advance that objective. It contradicts it. There is also a fundamental asymmetry in the current outcome that the Council should consider directly. The City’s position is that it bears no responsibility for the accuracy of its own records — the wrong owner named on the license two months after the recorded deed, the license transmitted to a non-existent email address not in the application, records acknowledged as incorrect but never corrected. Those errors carry no consequence for the City. Yet a single clerical error by the owner’s agent — one misfiled date — who was hired by me in part because of his role in crafting the STR legislation results in permanent loss of two licenses with no cure pathway. The City cannot claim immunity from any consequence of its own administrative errors while imposing the maximum possible consequence for an equivalent error by the owner’s

agent. This amendment – or finding of extraordinary circumstances - provide avenues for a proportionate and principled remedy that reflect what City Council said it would do on January 7th.

Request I respectfully request that this proposed revision be placed on the agenda for the April 8 workshop for discussion, with a view to adoption at the April 13 regular meeting. I am available to address the Council at both meetings.

Respectfully submitted,

Rakesh Madhava Owner, 534 St. Joseph Street Saugatuck, Michigan 49453 rakesh. 312

cc: Grayson Moore, Director of Planning and Zoning cc: Jacob Witte, FSBR Law cc: Ryan Cummins, City Manager

believed that by renting out the garage space he was just renting a single room in his house rather than an ADU; did not understand that renting out a single room in a home is not permitted; did not understand that the garage dwelling met the definition of an ADU; relied on his purported recollection that the BS&A records for his property didn’t characterize the garage space as an accessory dwelling unit when there is no evidence that BS&A has ever made that characterization for any property; relied on a purported conversation with the former Planning Director (Luke Thompson) in which Mr. Thompson said the garage space was not an ADU, even though Mr. Thompson has no recollection of that conversation and does not believe he would have made that statement.

The likely scenario, which is incredibly troubling, is that Commissioner Bagierek fully understood the rules and ordinances regarding STRs and ADUs, knew that his ADU did not qualify for use as an STR until February, 2025, and operated illegally until finally obtaining the required approvals in November, 2025. When he was confronted with these facts, he told several significant lies to justify his behavior. And during the public hearing for his SLU application, he mislead and/or lied to the Planning Commission when he characterized the background for his SLU request as follows (per the meeting minutes): He explained that his property at 610 Lake Street previously operated under a short-term rental license for the entire house, in line with the rules at the time. Due to recent changes in STR regulations and their current usage, he now proposes to rent only the apartment (upper-level ADU), which is similar to a previous application for Mason Street. I was therefore incredibly surprised to see that the only action taken by the City Council thus far was to recommend that the entire Planning Commission participate in a “learning and improvement opportunity” discussion. To suggest that the issue here is a lack of clarity in the city ordinances or a lack of understanding by the Planning commissioners of the rules and how to apply them is simply absurd. I was also not willing to participate in an attempt to whitewash the situation through this “learning opportunity” when in fact the Commission has no authority under state law or our bylaws to discipline or remove its members. That authority rests solely with the City Council. It is for that reason that I voted to remove the “learning and improvement opportunity” discussion from the Planning Commission agenda last week. I want to be perfectly clear that this vote in no way suggests that the Planning Commission has weighed in on Commissioner Bagierek’s conduct or determined that no further action is needed. It is the responsibility of the City Council to address this issue, and for that reason I am grateful to see that there will be a public discussion of the issue at the March 23 meeting. Thank you. Craig Baldwin Saugatuck Planning Commissioner Saugatuck City Resident

22 March 2026 To Saugatuck City Council for inclusion in the Council’s March 23, 2026, Council Meeting Packet - AMENDED At the Planning Commission meeting this past Thursday (March 19), a motion was made by Commissioner LaChey and seconded by Commissioner Marineau to remove New Business Item E titled “A Learning and Improvement Opportunity” from the Agenda for two reasons: 1) it might be a vehicle for the public shaming of Commissioner CJ Bagierek; and, 2) as a learning opportunity it is not necessary or productive. While I supported the motion to remove Item E from the agenda, my support was not entirely for the reasons cited by Commissioner LaChey. In thinking about my comments and reviewing the video of the meeting which only became available this afternoon, I am taking this opportunity to be clear and go on the record as to my position for removing the item from the agenda. In reviewing the “Learning and Improvement Opportunity” materials provided, I cannot unsee what I have seen, and that is, a sitting Planning Commissioner appears to have violated a number of ordinances over a period of years, some of which occurred during his time as a Planning Commissioner, including misleading fellow Commissioners. I supported the removal of Item E because I believe this matter – ‘the learning and improvement opportunity’ – actually belongs to Council and should return there. As a Commissioner, I understand that my responsibility is to ensure my conduct is consistent with City ordinances which I promised to uphold when I became a Commissioner – I don’t believe I need to “learn” that. When any city official is accused of violating an ordinance or ordinances, it has been my understanding that person will be held to account by City

Council, which is where the responsibility lies for the enforcement of Saugatuck’s Policy of Ethical Standards of Conduct. It is also my understanding that following a closed session of City Council when this matter was referred to Planning, the City Attorney reviewed this with Steve Manns, Chair of the Planning Commission; it was agreed that Chair Manns would review this matter with the Planning Commissioners as a whole for a ‘learning and improvement opportunity’. Since I cannot unknow what I now know, and as I consider my role as a Planning Commissioner, am I to assume that Council found so little merit in the allegations that they believed an adequate redress would be for the sitting Planning Commissioners to learn and improve as Chair Manns suggested? It is my opinion this is a deeply serious and potentially quite damaging reputational hit on the process, on Planning, and on the City – on each of us as the responsible officials - at a time when trust in our system of governance, including our officials, has never been more critically important and necessary. Bobbie Gaunt 341 Main Street Saugatuck, MI 49453

638 Spear Street Saugatuck Michigan

Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.

We provided full disclosure of the property and based upon what the city had on record the city cannot deny the understanding of the property. The CITY wrongly told us how to apply and the city approved a standard STR license. There was no discussion of Special Land Use requirements. By taking that direction from city, we understood ourselves to be in compliance. In fact, in compliance for the duration of that 3-year certificate. In early 2025 a SLU case came up for an Attached Auxiliary Dwelling Unit a term not found in our ordinances but is understandable and I find might have fell through the same issue as ours. My wife and I decided we would follow that lead with our renewal. Starting this controversy. I do understand I serve at the pleasure of city council, the whole city council. My comments about city council really speak to the controlling portion of city council. Your push for transparency is noted. Except 1. After one year on the job City Council voted 10% raise to someone with significant performance and personal issues. Shortly there after let go with a large settlement and no transparency to the citizens. 2. Multi-time election law offender on city council nothing is said and was allowed to still be involved in the processes of City Council and/or Elections. No transparency 3. Questions of city contracts within committee member business, public displays of intoxication, and negative police interaction with city representatives. Yes that’s a little bit of what-about-ism. But how else should we compare similar situations to the way things are dealt with? And if you compare severity it is hard to not look at the differences. How this has been dealt with, I would have nothing to lose if I choose to take the path of censure by stepping down for the remainder of the year as vice chair. I fully respect the Planning Commission and the members and have reached out to gain perspective. Mixed reactions, but all my conversations honored my ability to make my own decision. My one request before I make my decision is for the city to acknowledge the cities error with the original 2022 STR license. Thank you C.J. Bagierek Saugatuck Planning Commission Vice Chair