Mr. Tringali and Mr. Madhava re 534 St. Joseph

City Council Agenda Item Report FROM:

Ryan Cummins, City Manager

MEETING DATE:

May 20, 2026

SUBJECT:

Mr. Tringali and Mr. Madhava re 534 St. Joseph

DESCRIPTION: At the May 6 workshop, City Council passed the following motion: Motion by Dean, second by Muncey to add Mr. Tringali and Mr. Madava to the next workshop meeting agenda. Via roll call vote, motion carried unanimously. Correspondence from Mr. Madhava is attached. A copy of the previous letter from the City Attorney to Mr. Madhava is also attached. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal has reviewed and will be at your meeting for any questions. SAMPLE MOTION: Workshop item at this time.

March 5, 2026 Rakesh Madhava 534 St. Joseph St. Saugatuck, MI 49453

Via First Class Mail and Email

Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Vacation Rentals 133 Butler St., PO Box 471 Saugatuck, MI 49453

Dear Messrs. Madhava and Tringali: Re:

Expired STR License at 534 St. Joseph St., Saugatuck, Michigan

My office represents the City of Saugatuck (the “City”). The City has asked me to respond to your recent correspondence regarding the short-term rental (“STR”) license that was previously in effect for 534 St. Joseph St., but expired by its terms on July 5, 2025, due to nonrenewal. This letter specifically addresses: 1) Mr. Madhava’s emails to the City’s Director of Planning & Zoning, the most recent of which was sent on February 26, 2026, and requested renewal of the STR license based on extraordinary circumstances; and 2) Mr. Tringali’s February 25, 2025, letter to the City Council requesting reconsideration of license’s “exclusion from the Council’s amnesty provisions.” The issues you have raised to the City are addressed by topic below. DELIVERY OF STR LICENSE AND ALLEGED CLERICAL ERRORS You have both raised issues related to the transmission of the STR license for 534 St. Joseph, which was issued by the City on July 5, 2024. Mr. Madhava’s February 26, 2026 email contends: “The STR license for my property that delineates the renewal date was not sent to me, either electronically or in paper,” and demands an answer to whether “City staff has an obligation to notify the license holder as to the date for a license renewal.” Similarly, Mr. Tringali’s letter alleges that “important notices were not received or reviewed,” and that the failure to timely submit a renewal application “resulted from administrative misfiling and delayed notification.”

To answer Mr. Madhava’s question from the February 26, 2026 email, the City Code does not specifically require an STR license to be delivered to the owner. It simply states: “Once deemed to be complete, if an application complies with all the standards and regulations of this chapter and the required fire inspection certificate has been submitted pursuant to § 99.56, the enforcing officer shall approve the short-term rental license.” Section 99.55(E). The City’s STR application form similarly states: “Upon approval, the City will issue a Short-Term Rental License which will be valid for 1 year.” Therefore, City staff are not required under the City Code to deliver an issued license to an owner. More to the point, the City did properly provide a copy of the STR license for 534 St. Joseph St. immediately upon issuance, and again upon request of its local agent. The application for an STR license for 534 St. Joseph St. was submitted by Mr. Madhava on April 23, 2024. (Exhibit 1, 2024 STR Application). The 2024 STR Application listed Bella Vita Vacation Rentals as the Local Agent, along with the following email address: info@bellavitavacationrentals.com. Further, Mr. Madhava signed and dated the following statement in the “Local Agent” portion of the 2024 STR application: “I designate the local agent above and authorize the local agent to act as my agent for any acts required of the license under Chapter 99.5” (emphasis added). The application was approved on July 5, 2024, with the approved STR license being sent by the City via email to info@bellavitavacationrentals.com, which is the same local agent email address that was identified in the 2024 STR Application. (Exhibit 2, 7/5/24 Email to Bella Vita). Indeed, according to the City’s records, even after July 2024, Bella Vita Vacation Rentals submitted numerous STR license applications for other properties that were signed by Mr. Tringali that similarly listed info@bellavitavacationrentals.com as the email address for the local agent. The email from the City stated: “Please note the maximum occupants and expiration date.” On January 7, 2025, Mr. Tringali emailed the City Manager (using the email address kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com, rather than the address listed in the 2024 STR Application), stating: “We know 534 St. Joseph was recertified back in July of 2024 however I don’t recall seeing an actual certification document.” (Exhibit 3, 1/7/25 Email). The City Manager sent a copy of the license to Mr. Tringali. It was not until August 29, 2025, that Mr. Tringali informed the City Manager that the email address for Bella Vita had changed from info@bellavitavacationrentals.com to kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com, after which the City Manager responded that he would update the City’s system to change that contact information for Bella Vita. (Exhibit 4, 8/29/25 Email). By this point, the STR license has already expired.

The City appropriately sent the STR license to the email address provided for the local agent in the 2024 STR Application. To the extent that email address was incorrect, it was incumbent on Mr. Madhava—not the City—to keep contact information for the local agent current, pursuant to Section 99.55(B)(13) of the City Code, which provides: “The owner shall notify the city of any changes to the approved application within no later than 30 days of the date of the change, including change of mailing address, contact information, or local agent/rental agency.” Mr. Madhava’s February 26 email continues: “Either staff failed to administer the ordinance properly and as a result it is now trying to ignore it's own clerical error, inflicting a significant financial loss to me. Or it has no responsibility under the ordinance to actually issue the license with the expiration date to the legal STR license holder.” For the reasons explained above, City Staff does not have an affirmative obligation to provide a copy of an STR license to the license holder. Further, to the extent any clerical errors contributed to the nonrenewal of that license, those errors are attributable to Mr. Tringali, who was authorized by Mr. Madhava to act as his agent for “any acts required of the license” and had actual knowledge of the STR license’s expiration date. Mr. Tringali has acknowledged this fact in an email dated August 4, 2025, to the City, in which he stated: “I believe this oversight from our office stems from actually receiving our certification back on January 7th 2025. Our office mistakenly took that as the January 7th date as our annual expiration date and therefore was not prepared to have this ready by June 5th, 2025 for the July 5th expiration date.” (Exhibit 5, 8/4/25 Email Chain). Notably, the STR license clearly stated that it was “valid through 07/05/2025.” (Exhibit 6, 2024 STR License). Even if Mr. Tringali did not open the attachment the to view the STR license, the filename itself noted the issuance date, as it was titled: “STR License – 534 St. Joseph – 7-5-24.” (Exhibit 2, 7/5/24 Email to Bella Vita). That same August 4, 2025, email chain contains a similar admission from Mr. Madhava acknowledging this error: “As the result of a clerical error, we believed the license was issued on a January to January basis and not on a July to July basis.” (Exhibit 5, 8/4/2025 Email Chain). NOTICE OF EXPIRATION DATE Mr. Madhava’s February 26, 2026 email additionally states: “If delivering the license is NOT required, please identify precisely how an STR holder would be expected to find the expiration date. Please also include reference to the ordinance that identifies this as a responsibility of the STR holder.” The City Code provides that the license holder and local agent are responsible for applying for a renewed license no later than 30 days prior to the date that the license is set to expire. See City Code, Section 99.58. The City Code does not contain any requirements for the City to affirmatively notify license holders or local agents of license expiration dates. Thus, it is the license holder and local agent’s responsibility to know the expiration date of an STR license and to timely submit a renewal application prior to expiration.

Moreover, the 2024 STR Application contains an attestation that is signed by Mr. Madhava that states, in relevant part, the following attestations: • •

“Chapter 99.5 has been reviewed. I understand that if a license is issued under Chapter 99.5, it shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year from the date it was issued unless it is suspended or revoked by the City. I understand I 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 my license is set to expire, along with the license renewal fee established by the City’s fee schedule, and that if a complete renewal application has not been timely submitted or my previous license expires, my premises cannot be used as a short-term rental until a new license is issued.” [(Exhibit 1, 2024 STR Application) (emphasis omitted).]

Accordingly, both the City Code and the STR license application form itself are clear that the burden to manage license expiration dates and to ensure timely submission of renewal applications falls squarely on the license holder, not the City. The signed attestation in the 2024 STR Application is conclusive evidence that these requirements were understood when the application was filed, and any claims to the contrary arose only after the license was expired and are without merit. Additionally, there are many ways Mr. Madhava could have ascertained the expiration date of the STR license issued for 534 St. Joseph St. First, Mr. Madhava could have simply asked his local agent for a copy of the license or to identify the expiration date. Mr. Tringali was provided with a copy of the license containing the expiration date on July 5, 2024, and January 7, 2025, and he also had actual knowledge of the expiration date of the license. (Exhibit 3, 1/7/25 Email). Second, Mr. Madhava could have requested a copy of the license from City staff via email or in person. City staff routinely and promptly provide such documents upon request, as evidenced by the January 7, 2025 email from the City to Mr. Tringali, and City staff would have doubtlessly provided another copy. Third, Mr. Madhava could have used the City’s STR landing page on its website (https://www.saugatuckcity.com/short-term-rentals.html) to ascertain the expiration date of the STR license. The landing page contains a tab titled “Steps to Check Expiration Date,” which provides step by step instructions to identify the expiration date of STR licenses using the City’s BS&A website. Following these steps for 534 St. Joseph St. shows the following information:

The “Steps to Check Expiration Date” tab on the City’s STR landing page also contains the following relevant statement: “It is each owner’s responsibility to know and keep track of their expiration date—the City will not provide you with any advance notice prior to your expiration date.” Thus, it was the responsibility of Mr. Madhava and Mr. Tringali—not the City—to know and keep track of the expiration date of the STR license for 534 St. Joseph St. RECENT AMENDMENT TO STR REGU LATIONS Both Mr. Madhava and Mr. Tringali have raised issues relating to their expectations of what would be included in the recent amendment to the City’s STR regulations. Unfortunately, these unilateral expectations of what the Council could have done are not grounds for reinstating an expired license or excusing compliance with the City Code. At a Council workshop on January 7, 2026, the Council directed my office to prepare an amendment to the City Code that would effectuate: “a one-time license reinstatement/amnesty for those affected by recent administrative lapses, to address the possible inclusion of an ‘act of God’ hardship exemption and to clarify and codify the renewal process and notification standards.” 1 This direction was not an amendment to the City Code, nor was it a final and definitive statement of the final terms of the amendment. Rather, it was a general framework within which City Staff would prepare a proposed amendment for adoption at a later date. The draft amendment to the City Code was presented to the Council at its February 4, 2026 workshop, and a copy of the amendment was included in the meeting packet for that workshop, which was available to the public in advance of the meeting. The meeting minutes contain the following summary of the Council’s discussion of the amendment: Ordinance No. 260204-A - Short Term Rental Licensing Ordinance Amendment: The ordinance discussion was about addressing how short-term rental renewals are handled and creating a one-time amnesty for a small group of owners. Going forward, there will be a single, clear renewal date and a defined application window, so people know exactly when they must apply. Staff and the attorney also added a very narrow “extraordinary circumstances” exception—for things truly beyond an owner’s control, not simple forgetfulness—that can be used for late items (like renewals or inspection follow-ups). The one-time amnesty is limited to specific properties recognizing they made a good-faith effort while still keeping the ordinance firm for others. Council was generally supportive, and the redlined ordinance with these changes is going to the next meeting for formal adoption.

Meeting minutes from City Council meetings, as well as the meeting packets and agendas, are available on the City’s website: https://www.saugatuckcity.com/city-council.html

The amendment was unanimously approved by the Council at its February 9, 2026, regular meeting. At the February 9, 2026, regular meeting, the City Council even asked City staff, prior to voting on the relevant ordinance amendment, “Do we have a list of the properties impacted by this[.]” (See Recording of City Council Meeting, February 9, 2026 YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUwVYrZlOh4, timestamp 1:50:00). In response to that question, City staff expressly explained that there is a list of 8 properties, but “two of those are unable to renewed under this ordinance due to applying after the application period.” See id. Therefore, it was clear on the record that the ordinance amendment that was being considered by City Council and that was ultimately adopted did not provide amnesty for all affected properties. Mr. Madhava’s February 26, 2026 email states: “I'm confused, there was a unanimous vote to reinstate my license along with the 8 others. I was there. How does this amendment get written and passed if it doesn't reflect the intent of the city council. The question was brought to order, seconded and voted on individually.” Mr. Tringali’s February 25, 2026 letter similarly states: “it was clearly conveyed that all nine properties impacted during the transition period would be afforded amnesty consideration. Based on that understanding, we were surprised and disappointed to learn that amnesty was ultimately granted to only five properties, with ours among those excluded.” These statements may be reflective of a misunderstanding of the Council’s actions. As explained above, the Council never voted to provide amnesty to every license or to any specific license holder. As indicated above, there was consensus by the Council at a workshop for an amendment to be prepared that afforded some amnesty for “administrative lapses,” which was later clarified to include various criteria for eligibility, including the requirement to have submitted a renewal application prior to license expiration. While the Council may have considered, and some may have hoped for, a broader amnesty while the amendment was initially discussed, that was not incorporated into the final amendment. Mr. Tringali’s February 25, 2026 letter states: “Public statements indicated broader relief than what was ultimately applied, and we relied on those representations in good faith.” Reliance requires an affirmative act or omission, or some other kind of change in position. By the time the Council was discussing the latest amendment to the City’s STR regulations, the license for 534 St. Joseph St. had already expired, and there was nothing that Mr. Tringali nor Mr. Madhava did or could have done to change their positions in reliance on this discussion. Thus, the suggestion that there was good faith reliance on these discussions is unavailing. Finally, Mr. Madhava’s February 26, 2026 email asserts that he had “no notice to be able to address this prior to passing of the new ordinance, nor given an opportunity to comment on the language of the ordinance.” This is simply untrue. The City provided notice of all meetings and workshops where changes to its STR regulations were to be discussed as required by law. The agenda and

packets for these meetings were available in advance on the City’s website, and citizens are able to attend and participate in-person or virtually. The City is under no legal obligation to provide affirmative, individualized notice of agenda items to persons who may have an interest in the Council’s final decision on that agenda item, nor would it be remotely feasible for the City to do so. According to the City’s records, Mr. Madhava subscribes to the City’s email list and was sent specific emails as to both the February 4, 2026 City Council workshop and the February 9, 2026 City Council regular meeting. These emails included links to the relevant meeting packets, which contain the agenda for the meeting and would have clearly indicated that the STR amendment was being discussed and acted upon. Accordingly, the City provided ample notice to Mr. Madhava. Mr. Madhava could have easily learned when the STR amendment was going to be discussed and acted upon via the City’s website or the subscription emails and participated in the discussion via Zoom or in person. Mr. Madhava was entitled to no more notice or opportunity for comment than what was afforded to him. EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES Mr. Madhava’s February 26, 2026 email finally requests a renewed license due to claimed extraordinary circumstances, claiming that “the ordinance clearly enables staff to exercise it's judgment in renewing licenses,” and that “[t]he circumstances around the failure to deliver the STR license is documented, is extraordinary, and was beyond my control.” Section 99.64(B) of the City Code, as amended by the Council on February 9, 2026, does provide the City’s enforcing officer with the ability to excuse compliance with deadlines in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, Mr. Madhava’s February 26 email will be treated as a request to excuse compliance with the June 5, 2025, renewal deadline for the STR license issued for 534 St. Joseph St. due to extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Section 99.64(B) of the City Code, and this letter from my office serves as the official determination of the City enforcing officer 2 as to whether such extraordinary circumstances exist. The newly amended Section 99.64(B) provides: The enforcing officer shall also have the authority to excuse compliance with the deadlines set forth in this chapter (but no other requirements of this chapter) if a license holder provides the enforcing officer with satisfactory proof that an untimely submission was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond the license

The City’s enforcing officer is the Director of Planning & Zoning, Grayson Moore. He has reviewed and adopted the determination set forth in this letter.

holder’s control. For the purposes of this subsection, “extraordinary circumstances” may include such circumstances as acts of God including flood, fire, endemic, pandemic, war, or civil unrest; a documented medical condition that renders the license holder unable to submit a timely application; or military service or deployment. “Extraordinary circumstances” shall not include any 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 enforcing officer’s determination of whether extraordinary circumstances exist shall be final. Mr. Madhava identifies the City’s “failure to deliver the STR license” as extraordinary circumstances warranting renewal of the STR license for 534 St. Joseph St. On behalf of the City enforcing officer, this request is rejected on the basis the City’s failure to deliver an STR license to an owner does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” as defined by Section 99.64(B) of the City Code, for the following reasons: Section 99.64(B) requires “proof that an untimely submission was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond the license holder’s control.” Notwithstanding that a copy of the STR license was not emailed to Mr. Madhava, a copy was sent to his local agent on two occasions before it expired. It was not beyond Mr. Madhava’s control to ask his local agent for a copy, nor was it beyond Mr. Tringali’s control to forward the license to Mr. Madhava or otherwise appraise him of the renewal deadline. Further, Mr. Madhava could have ascertained the renewal deadline even without a copy of the STR license using the easily accessible tools on the City’s website or by asking City staff for a copy. Section 99.64(B) further provides that “‘extraordinary circumstances’ shall not include any circumstances attributable to the license holder or local agent’s own actions, inaction, negligence, or neglect.” The circumstances surrounding the failure to submit a timely renewal application were primarily attributable to the inaction, negligence, or neglect of the local agent in mistakenly believing that the STR license for 534 St. Joseph St. expired in January of 2026, rather than July of 2025, despite the expiration date of July 5, 2025, being very clearly indicated on the license. Section 99.64(B) finally provides that “‘extraordinary circumstances’ […] shall not include any alleged failure of the City to provide notice.” The circumstances cited by Mr. Madhava—that the City did not send him a copy of the license for 534 St. Joseph St.—are essentially an allegation of the City failing to provide notice of his expiration date, which does not constitute extraordinary circumstances under Section 99.64(B). As indicated on the City’s website and as explained in this letter, it is the responsibility of the license holder and the local agent to know the expiration date.

CONCLUSION The City recognizes that the loss of the STR license for 534 St. Joseph St. is an unwelcome development, and that Mr. Madhava and Mr. Tringali may have had different expectations for how the City Code would be amended. However, the fact that a copy of the license was only sent to the local agent for 534 St. Joseph St. and not the license holder does not warrant reinstatement of a now-expired license under the City Code. The City considers this matter resolved at this time. If Mr. Madhava still desires to use the property for short-term rental purposes, he can submit an application for an STR license for the accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) on the property, as ADUs are exempt from the maximum limits on STR licenses. However, it should be noted that all requirements for an ADU must be met in order to be considered. Sincerely,

JACOB N. WITTE SENIOR ASSOCIATE

Direct: 517.381.3201

jwitte@fsbrlaw.com

Owner Information Ownership Type (select one)

[lJ Personal

Name of Person(s):Rakesh Madhava

Trust Name of Trust: Identify all beneficiaries and trustees of the trust (use additional sheet if necessary): 1. Beneficiary/Trustee:

2. Beneficia ry/frustee: 3. Beneficia ry/frustee: 4. Beneficiary/frustee:

5. Beneficiary/Trustee: Corporate Entity Name of Corporate Entity:

Identify all current members of the Corporate Entity and their percentage ownership interests in the corporation or other entity (use additional sheets If necessary): %Ownership: Member: Member:

%Ownership:

Member:

% ownership:

Member:

%Ownership:

Member

%Ownership

Address: 534 St. Joseph St. Phone:

E-mail: Owner Attestation: • The dwelling unit will be operated in conformance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 99.5

Owner Signature: I

�kh

Date:

4/23/2024

102 Butler Street• P.O. Box 86 • Saugatuck, Ml 49453 Phone: 269-857-2603 • Website: www.saugatuckcity.com Code of Ordinances: https://codcl1brary,amlegaLcom/codcs/sauqatu�k/latest/saltgatuck m1/0 0-0-1

Applicant (Select all that apply):

IZ] Owner

License Holder I ntormation

Other

Applicant Name: Applicant Address: Applicant Phone: Applicant E-mail: Owner Approval of Another Applicant: I grant authorit y to the applicant to act on my behalf to request a license under Chapter 99.5 of the City's Code o_i.O�ances. r� Owner Signature: Date: ➔ 1.,,) i,t{

I I

Local Agent Information

If the owner or license holder does not qualify as, or does not desire to be, a local agent, then the license holder shall designate a local agent. A local agent must reside or maintain a physical place of business within a 25-mile radius of the short-term rental. The local agent shall be knowledgeable about the premises and accountable for responding to the premises 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per vear.

Designated Local Agent Agent Name: Agent Address: Agent Phone:

D Owner [:tOther

1:, %,,,\\.� V l � V V'lfi-v\- 7' o..:,

u.� 1,J-\-\'e-4L... • �c

��l\'1....$, q1, \

)) � tu'\'"t:� C.\.(..

4...Ci \.{ ') '3>

Agent E-mail: Approval of Agent: • I designate the local agent above and authorize the local agent to act as my agent for any acts required of the license u_n_ger Chapter 99.5. Date: ""f / •1-,; {i,.'-( License Holder or Owner Signature: �

102 Butler Street• P.0. Box 86• Saugatuck, Ml 49453 Phone: 269-857-2603 • Website: www.saugatuckcity.com

Code of Ordinances: 1.li.U2.�c;-.9_d_i:libraryamlegal.com/codes/saugatuck/la1esr/.:;augatJ.K..k rni/0-0-0 l

COV

AGENT COPY: AGENT: FBDB/3B3D

MAY 20, 2024

POLICY��:

HO - HOMEOWNERS

MADHAVA, RAKESH PHONE#: ***** DUPLICATE REQUEST ***** Eff date: (05/08/24)

Curr date: (05/08/24)

Time:

(11:57 AM)

---------------==-----------------------=========�===--==-====================== **DEDUCTIBLE AND COVERAGE AMOUNT CHANGES**

Coverages: (L-PERS LIAS

500000)

----------=======----- -------=====--================-========================== **OPTIONS AND ENDORSEMENTS** ADD:

Home Rental# Nights(90 )

Stato Fnnn Fl� and Cuuatty Company

A Slool< Oompany 'MIil Homo OlflCtHJ In Sloomlngton, 1/tlnoio

PoBox2366 Blooming/on IL 61702-2356 AT1

�tatC1fam,· DECLARATIONS

MAnHAVA-

AMENDED APR 24 2024

AMOUNT DUE:

None

Payment is due by TO BE PAID BY MORTGAGE!: Policy Nuinber:

Policy Period: 12 Months

Effective Dates: MAY 30 2024 to MAY 30 2025

The policy period begins and ends at 12:01 am standard time at the residence premises.

HOMEOWNERS POLICY Location of Residence Premises 534 ST JOSEPH ST

SAUGATUCK Ml 49453-9489

Your State Fann Agent

KABRI MARTYNIEK 150 CENTER ST UNIT A DOUGLAS Ml 49406-5155 Phone: (269) 857-2131

Construction: Year Built:

Frame 1922

Automatic Renewal

Roof Material: Composition Shingle Roof lnstallatlon Year: 1994

If the POLICY PERIOD is shown as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. If this policy is tenninated, we will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written notice in compliance with the policy provisions or as rec1uired by law.

IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Your polioy is amended APR 24 2024 INSURED NAME ANO/OR ADDRESS CHANGE Other items shown are effective with the policy's 2024 renewal Number of Families: 01 2one: 62 Subzone: 99 Customer Rating Index: 5589 rREMIUM

Endorsement Premium

Your premium has already been adjusted by the foffowing:

NONE

Claim Record Loyal Customer

Prep"1e<I APR 25 202q

Page 1 of 3

Uf\"i�

NAMt:0 INSURED

MADHAVA, RAKESH

State Farm MORTGAGEE AND ADDITIONAL INTERESTS Mortgagee THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK ISAONATIMA PO BOX5072 TROY Ml 48007-5072

SECTION I PROPERrY COVERAGES AND LIMITS

Coverage A Dwelling Other Structures B Personal Property C Loss of Use Additional Coverages Arson Reward Bed Bugs Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, aI1d Counterfeit Money Debris Removal Fire Department Service Charge Fuel Oil Release Looks and Remote Devices Trees, Shrubs, and Landsoapilig

SECTION 11LIABILITY COVERAGES AND LIMITS

Coverage

L Personal Liability (Each Occurrence) Damage lo the Property of Others M Medical Payments to Others (Each Person)

INFLATION

Loar, Number:

Limit of Liability 479,300 $ 47,930 $ $ $

359,475 143,790

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Additional 5% available/$1,000 tree debris $500 per occurrence $10,000 $1,000 5% of Coverage A amounV$750 per item

Limit of Liability

300,000 1,000 1,000

lnftalion Coverage Index: 338.8

OEDUCTrBl£S

Section I Deductible All Losses

LOSS smLEME.NT PROVISIONS

Deductible Amount 2,000 $

A1 Replaoement Cost • Similar Constniction B1 Limited Replacement Cost •. Coverage B

Stoto Form Fire and Coauolty Company

A Stook Oompany With Homo OH/c,,a In Bloomington, Ill/no/a

StateFann

PO8ox2366 Btoomh1gl011 IL 61702·2356

noo

POPE, JENNIFER & MADHAVA, RAK��"---------

RENEWAL DECLARATIONS AMOUNT DUE: Nono Payment 11 due by TO BE PAID BY MORTGAGEE Policy Number: Policy Period: 12 Months Effective Dates: MAY 30 2024 to MAY 30 2025 The 11olicy period begins and ends at 12:01 am standard time at the residence premises.

Homeowr ers Policy Location of Residence Premises

534 ST JOSEPH ST SAUGATUCK Ml 49453-9489 Construction: Year Bullt:

Vour State Farm Agent KABRI MARTYNIEK 150 CENTER ST UNIT A 49406-5155 DOUGLAS Ml Phone: (269) 857-2131

Frame 1922

Roof Materlal: Composition Shingle Roof Installation Vear: 1994

Automatic Renewal If the POLICY PERIOD is shown as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiurns, rules, a11d forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. If this policy is terminated, we will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written notice in comriliance with the policy provisions or as required by law,

IMPORTANT MESSAGES NOTICE: Information concerning changes in your llOlicy language is included. Please call your agent with any questions. Number of Families: 01 Zone: 62 Subzone: 99 Customer Rating Index: 5589 Please help us update the data used lo detennine your premium. Contact your agent with the year each of your home's utilities (healing/cooling, plumbing, or electrical) and roof were last updated.

PREMIUM Annual Premium Your premium has already been adjusted by the followi11g: Claim Record Discount Loyal Customer

$2,384.00

Total Premium

$2,384.00

Prep&red APA OB 2024

P1ge I of 4

un "IMn

State Farm· MORTGAGt:E AND ADDITIONAL INTERESTS

NAMEO INSURF:J POPE, JENNIFER & MADHAVA, RAKESH

Mortgagee THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK ISAOA/ATIMA PO BOX 5072 TROY Ml 48007-5072

!, .CTION PROPERTY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Coverage A Dwelling Other Slruotures B Personal Property C Loss of Use Additional Coverages Arson Reward Bed Bugs Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Debris Removal Fire Department Service Charge Fuel Oil Release Looks and Remote Devices Trees, Shrubs, and Landsoaping SECTIO� II LIABILITY tOVERAGL� ANO LIMITS Coverage L Personal Liability (Each Occurrence) Damage to the Properly of Others M Medical Payments to Others {Eaoh Person)

Loan Number:

Limit of Liability $ $ $ $

479,300 47,930 359,475 143,790

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Additional 5% available/$1,000 tree debris $500 per ooourrence $10,000 $1,000 5% of Coverage A amounV$750 per item

Limit of Liability $ $ $

300,000 1,000 1,000

If rl IO� Inflation Coverage Index: 338.8 DEDU�TIBL

Section I Deductible All Losses

Deductible Amount $

2,000

LOSS SfTTLEMENT PROVI IONS A1 Replaoement Cost - Similar Construction 81 Limited Replacement Cost - Coverage B

un .,,,,,,,

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Friday, July 5, 2024 6:46 PM jennifer@theballroom.com; Bella Vita Vacation Rentals 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

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Tuesday, January 7, 2025 1 :58 PM Kevin Trinqali; David Jirousek Kyle Salay; Kevin Tringali; Luke Thompson RE: 534 St. Joseph-recertification 534 St. Joseph

Hi Kevin, Happy New Year! Attached is approval email and certificate from earlier this year. I believe Luke is looking at correcting the owner name as it incorrectly listed one of the parties. I have copied him. Thank you,

Ryan Cummins

City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box86 Saugatuck,M149453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 12:01 PM To: David Jirousek <david@horizon-planning.com> Cc: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com>; Kyle Salay <kyle@horizon-planning.com>; Kevin Tringali <info@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Su bject: RE: 534 St. Joseph-recertification

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

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 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com

From: David Jirousek [mailto:david@horizon-planning.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 2:12 PM To: kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com 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@horizon-planning.com> Subject: Fwd: 534 St. Joseph-recertification

Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Date: July 10, 2024 at 11:44:05 AM EDT To: Kyle Salay <kyle@horizon-planning.com> Cc: Rakesh Madhava <rmadhava@nextpoint.com> Subject: 534 St. Joseph-recertification Hi Kyle, 2

My name is Kevin Tringali, property manager for 534 St. Joseph in Saugatuck. My homeowner received a violation notice regarding our recertification? This new application was originally submitted back in April 2024 and again in May for the 2 nd dwelling which I believe has not been used as of yet. The actual inspection date was mid June and as it always has passed with no issues and we did receive our certification from the city saying so. The month of June was primarily blocked off and occupied by the owner who was in the process of making sever improvements (painting, staining and replacing items in the home. According to Ryan Cummings (City manager) this is just a notice. We are asking to confirm this for our records as there was no violation. Thank you

Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate / Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Friday, August 29, 2025 2:07 PM Kevin Trinqali Lindsay Tringali RE: 534 St. Joseph

Thanks Kevin. I will update our system to change the contact information provided for the STR apps we have received from info@bellavitavacationrentals.com to kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com Thank you,

Ryan Cummins City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box86 Saugatuck,Ml49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 1:59 PM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Cc: Lindsay Tringali <lindsaymlorence@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 534 St. Joseph

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Yes, this email we are communicating on now, kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com Thank you

Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Vacation Rentals 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com 1

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 29, 2025, at 1 :30 PM, Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> wrote:

Hi Kevin, Just to clarify, you want us to change the contact email for Bella Vita and all your properties to

kevio@bellavitavacatioorentals.com?

If so, I will make that change in our system. Please make sure that is clear on future STR apps too. Thank you,

Ryan Cummins

City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box86 Saugatuck,MI49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 1:19 PM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Cc: Lindsay Tringali <lindsaymlorence@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: 534 St. Joseph

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you, this helps explain things, why these are not getting to me. My work email is kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com Please continue to use this email moving forward. Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Vacation Rentals 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com l<~WRD2501.jpg>I Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 29, 2025, at 12:29 PM, Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> wrote: Hi Kevin, Attached is the letter again. Here is the e-mail we have: iofo@bellayjtayacatjonrentals.com It looks like Luke has also sent other e-mails to you on some other rentals noting the 30-day requirement. Thank you,

Ryan Cummins City Manager City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box86 Saugatuck,MI49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Friday, August 29 , 2025 12:05 PM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Cc: Lindsay Tringali <lindsaymlorence@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ryan, For some reason the "letter to STR owners and agents" attachment will not open (getting an error message. Is there a way you can let me know what email address you show for us? I am not seeing the 8/29/24 email in either my be Ila vita email or our general email box. Thank you Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate/ Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com <image001.png> <image002.jpg>

From: Ryan Cummins [mailto:rcummins@saugatuckcity.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 11:41 AM

To: Kevin Tringali Cc: Lindsay Tringali Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph Hi Kevin,

Attached is the e-mail that was sent on 8-29 -24. The e-mail provided to us tor Bella Vita and 719 Pleasant was on the blind copy list. Attached is the letter that was mailed in late December. Bella Vita Vacation Rentals, Mr. Madhava, Mr. Wardzala, and Mr. May were on the mailing labels list. There was no requirement tor us to e-mail or send a letter about this but we wanted to provide additional education. We have the same information on our website as well. 4

The deadline tor renewal application is also listed on the attestation on the STR application form that were submitted to us last year. Thank you, Ryan Cummins City Manager City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box86 Saugatuck,Ml49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603 From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Wednesday, August27 ,2025 11:52 AM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> Cc: Lindsay Tringali <lindsaymlorence@yahoo.com> Subject: FW:534 St. Joseph

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ryan, Hope all is well, just continuing to try to get my head around all this and have appreciated your help along the way. I highlighted a snip of a previous email you had sent me regarding some communication via emails and letters with instructions on how to check expirations on line? Can you share with me when and to whom these were sent to for both properties? (534 St. Joseph and719 Pleasant) as well when it was sent to me? I am not finding it. Thank you Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate/ Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com <image001.png> <image002.jpg>

From: Ryan Cummins [mailto:rcummins@sauqatuckcity.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2025 12:29 PM To: Kevin Tringali; Kevin Tringali; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph 5

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

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 11:58 AM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com>; Kevin Tringali <info@bellavitavacationrentals.com>; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph

This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Caution:

Hi Ryan, Thank you for the conversation. As I stated I believe this oversight from our office stems from actually receiving our certification back on January 7th 2025. Our office mistakenly took that as the January 7th date as our annual expiration date and therefore was not prepared to have this ready by June 5th, 2025 for the July 5th expiration date. As you can imagine this all comes as a shock and are trying to comprehend this circumstance. Until we speak to our attorney and property owner it is best on our part to at least submit the necessary renewal application to the city until we get more clarity on how to move forward. Thank you Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate/ Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com <image001.png> <image002.jpg>

From: Ryan Cummins [mailto:rcummins@saugatuckcity.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2025 10:40 AM To: Kevin Tringali; Kevin Tringali; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph Hi Kevin, Unfortunately, it appears that the renewal would be untimely. It looks like there were STR licenses for both the home and ADU and both expired on 7/5/25. The ordinance requires that renewals be submitted "no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date that the license is set to expire". See 99.58(8). We reminded both owners and agents of this last year and advised folks it was important to keep track of the expiration dates. We also noted in the email when issuing the license that you should note the expiration date. 7

The ordinance allows for a late renewal application, but they may only be submitted five calendar dates after the deadline and are subject to a late fee. "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". See 99.58(8). The property cannot be rented without a STR license. With the cap in community residential there aren't licenses available. 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,MI49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2025 11:45 AM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com>; Kevin Tringali

<info@bellavitavacationrentals.com>; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ryan, We have everything in line, I believe this is our first "annual" renewal just waiting for a copy of the updated insurance policy, everything else is in line and will be handed in this week. Thank you! Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate/ Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 8

www.bellavitavacationrentals.com <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.madhava@gmail.com 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>

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Rakesh Madhava <rakesh.madhava@gmail.com> Monday, August 4, 2025 5:00 PM Ryan Cummins Kevin Tringali; Kevin Tringali Re: 534 St. Joseph

Caution:

This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Ryan, thanks for returning my call. I appreciate the time. If you would please provide the following information to the City Council it would be greatly appreciated. To the Saugatuck City Council: I am the owner of 534 St. Joseph Street in Saugatuck, Michigan. The house was purchased in 2007 and I have enjoyed becoming part of the community during that time. Approximately 9 years ago, circumstances changed and it made sense to rent the house on a part time basis. I have been working with Kevin Tringali at Bella Vita Vacations who assisted in managing the property, including relevant licenses and inspections. This past year, as a result of the new STR ordinance, an STR license was issued for 534 St. Joseph in both my name and that of Jennifer A. Pope, who had been a co-owner of the house until our divorce effective in May of 2024. The license was issued through July 5, 2025. As the result of a clerical error, we believed the license was issued on a January to January basis and not on a July to July basis. When issued, the email with the STR license attached was sent on Fri, Jul 5, 2024, 5:45 PM: from: to:

Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> "jennifer@theballroom.com" <jennifer@theballroom.com>, Bella Vita Vacation Rentals <info@bellavitavacationrentals.com>

As a result I did not receive a copy of the license. As Jennifer Pope and I were divorced of that date, she was no longer an owner of the property. The divorce was finalized in May of 2024 and there were a lot of 1

changes in paperwork going on at the time regarding the change of ownership in the house, which I was happy to undertake frankly because I wanted to keep the house. Additionally, the license went to Bella Vita's general email box and not directly to Mr. Tringali. In January, Bella Vita and Mr. Tringali began the process of ensuring all licenses were in place and requested a copy of the license which they received. However, they believed the license was issued on an annual basis from January to January. I apologize for the oversight, it was not intentional -- again we believed the license was issued on a January to January calendar basis and I didn't get a copy of the original license in either July or January. Mr. Tringali and I are in regular communication and neither he nor I were aware that the license application was required to be submitted 30 days before the July expiration date, were not aware the license has expired, and were not aware we had a 5 day grace period to submit the renewal. That said, given that this is the first year of the new ordinance, we are formally asking for the license for 534 to be reissued, per the regular application process with necessary inspections included. We have submitted the application with all necessary documentation. As to whether this requires a formal change to the ordinance or can be done by the Council on a one-off basis is clearly at your discretion. And I would formally request that the license be renewed by whatever mechanism necessary. Please let me know if you would like me to speak further to any of these facts at an upcoming meeting and I will gladly make myself available. Submitted respectfully, Rakesh Madhava On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:29 AM Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com> wrote: 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 email. 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

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 11:58 AM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com>; Kevin Tringali <info@bellavitavacationrentals.com>; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph

Caution:

This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ryan,

Thank you for the conversation. As I stated I believe this oversight from our office stems from actually receiving our certification back on January 7th 2025. Our office mistakenly took that as the January 7 th date as our annual expiration date and therefore was not prepared to have this ready by June 5 th, 2025 for the July 5th expiration date.

As you can imagine this all comes as a shock and are trying to comprehend this circumstance. Until we speak to our attorney and property owner it is best on our part to at least submit the necessary renewal application to the city until we get more clarity on how to move forward.

Thank you

Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate/ Vacation Rentals 4

A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com

From: Ryan Cummins [mailto:rcummins@saugatuckcity.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2025 10:40 AM To: Kevin Tringali; Kevin Tringali; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph

Hi Kevin,

Unfortunately, it appears that the renewal would be untimely. It looks like there were STR licenses for both the home and ADU and both expired on 7/5/25.

The ordinance requires that renewals be submitted “no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date that the license is set to expire”. See 99.58(B). We reminded both owners and agents of this last year and advised folks it was important to keep track of the expiration dates. We also noted in the email when issuing the license that you should note the expiration date.

The ordinance allows for a late renewal application, but they may only be submitted five calendar dates after the deadline and are subject to a late fee. “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 shortterm rental license shall be deemed expired”. See 99.58(B).

The property cannot be rented without a STR license. With the cap in community residential there aren’t licenses available.

Please let me know if you have any questions. 5

Thank you,

Ryan Cummins City Manager

City of Saugatuck 102 Butler St PO Box86 Saugatuck,Ml49453 Ph: (269) 857-2603

From: Kevin Tringali <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2025 11:45 AM To: Ryan Cummins <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com>; Kevin Tringali <info@bellavitavacationrentals.com>; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com Subject: RE: 534 St. Joseph

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ryan,

We have everything in line, I believe this is our first “annual” renewal just waiting for a copy of the updated insurance policy, everything else is in line and will be handed in this week.

Thank you!

Kevin Tringali Bella Vita Real Estate / Vacation Rentals A proud partner of Coldwell Banker Woodland Schmidt Realty 616-635-1717 www.bellavitavacationrentals.com

From: Ryan Cummins [mailto:rcummins@saugatuckcity.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2025 5:01 PM To: Kevin Tringali; Kevin Tringali; rakesh.madhava@gmail.com 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/shortterm-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

fA.JA.J.j * Short-Term Rental License EST. 1868

Unit: The Farm House

534 ST JOSEPH ST SAUGATUCK, Ml 49453

Owner: MADHAVA RAKESH M & POPE JENNIFER Responsible Party: BELLA VITA VACATION RENTALS Maximum Occupancy: 8 This property has met the inspection cri teria of the Saugatuck Township Fire District and is licensed as an approved Short-Term Rental by the City of Saugatuck. Short-Term Rentals may be subject to private restrictions. It is your responsibility to confirm compliance.

Valid Through 07/05/2025 LICENSE NUMBER

CSTR License-240021

Ryan Cummins - Zoning Administrator 102 Butler Street, Saugatuck MI 49453

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

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

534 St. Joseph Street CSTR-240021 • CSTR-240024 Madhava • May 20, 2026 Workshop I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for the same treatment given to five other owners.

The Story What I thought would happen •

License expired August 2025 - surprised, not concerned

Retained Tringali - STR task force member, helped write this ordinance

January 7 - Council confirmed amnesty for nine. Outside counsel: legally defensible.

This Council acknowledged owners were making business decisions based on its direction

Renewed Chicago lease • Traveled to care for elderly parents • Made property plans

OPENING

What Happened Next •

Returned - property excluded from the ordinance

Council members also surprised by the outcome

§99.64(8) appeared designed for this situation

February 26 - emailed Grayson Moore - designated decision-maker per statute

Expected a routine administrative review

The letter arrived instead.

OPENING

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes

Ftelc.c,hn.�l!Vll Sl4St.jouphSt. Sauratud(, Ml 4'4S} n:uchan@nexrpoim com

NEXTPOINT

Letter from City Regarding 534 St. Joesph Street

Ktv"nTmrah Sdll Via Vaa.tion lt.e11ta.ls 1331kttlerS:..,POBo.x◄71

kPvi:@h,IJavi:awurico:tmk-rnm

My olfce repn:swo die Cit( dS&\Jp rect:ntCOl"r6por.d8"1Ce reprclinr the 1 for 5:34 St. Joseph St., bvt t)(fito4 b) spedRcal1y �dre$SE-S: I) Mr. ttad'\a¥a': rect:nt of whktl w.iis sent on Fel>Mt) Ofl utr.iordnuycitwl'Tlttancc,: arid 2 requ-tsthe, r�oo�e<"uion of Ucuise iuuM Yl>ll tm,,. r:a,r..cl to th• City ,ir•

Brian Fox <bfox@fsbrlaw.com> • Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:16 PM To: "rmadhava@nextpoint.com" <rmadhava@nextpoint.com>, "kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com" <kevin@bellavitavacationrentals.com> Cc: Jacob Witte <jwitte@fsbrlaw.com>, Trent Cunningham <tcunningham@fsbrlaw.com>, "rcummins@saugatuckcity.com" <rcummins@saugatuckcity.com>, "gmoore@saugatuckcity.com" <gmoore@saugatuckcity.com> Good afternoon. Attached please find a letter from Attorney Jacob Wille on behalf of the City of Saugatuck. Please let me know if you have any issuos wah the attachment. Physical copies are also being sent via Firs t Class mail. Thanks,

DELIVERY OF STR UCENSI You have both ra,«1 iuues rclucd to WU ls�d b,r the Otr 0t1J1J)y 21>?+. lico11 11 bmy p l'CpQl'C)' thu dtl:n�ta or i11 fO�r,- .eel demU1d, 31'1 �wcr holCEr 115 ro che due for� l!ci:rue re, notica. -r• no, rcac•iv•d or rtvi.-w,11 ''re:Uted from .,,1n,ir,im,rtivc m.i,cU'ng

unn ca.tetL aMi. towno.a.

BrianJ. Fox Legal ASsistant , Fahey Schultz Burzy<h Rhodes

Direct: 517 .468.8357 Office: 517.381.0100 , Fax: 517.381.3184

fsbrlaw.com • bfox@fsbrlaw.oom 4151 Okemos Road. Okemos, Ml ,ss64

What Followed ''An uncontested record of administrative issues building in a public proceeding, while arguing there is no statutory responsibility, is not an ideal place for the ordinance to be. Resolving this - however the Council sees fit - delivers the clean slate."

- Correspondence to a Council member, April 3, 2026

25 years in legal industry, managing partner of a law firm - professional assessment, not a complaint

Had to sublet Chicago apartment

No time to perform a full discounted cash flow analysis

Forced discussions senior management, board of directors and lenders regarding my schedule

No factual error in this record has been contested by the City

OPENING

The Standard Before Us "But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing." - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

A discussion.

A dialogue.

A vote on the record.

Proportionality This is not a request for special treatment. It is a demand for the same treatment given to five other owners. ''An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws." - Thomas Paine

Section 1: The Timeline DATE

EVENT

Apr 2024

Application filed - correct contact information

May 2024

Deed transferred - recorded Allegan County

Jul2024

License issued - wrong owner - wrong address

Jan 2025

Agent requests copy - keystroke error made

Jul2025

License expires - owner unaware

Aug 1, 2025

City notifies Madhava - voluntary - triggers community response

Aug 4, 2025

Filed 3 days after notification - denied

Jan 7, 2026

Council confirms amnesty for nine

Feb 9, 2026

Five receive amnesty - one excluded

Feb 26, 2026

EC request filed with Moore

Mar 5, 2026

Outside counsel letter - matter declared resolved

Mar 28, 2026

Two proposals submitted

SECTION 1: PROPORTIONALITY

Section 1: Seven Documented Facts 1 Correct contact info submitted - City deviated at issuance

Agent keystroke error - one in ten years, 44 properties

License to address not in the application

City notification Aug 1, 2025 - voluntary

Wrong owner - two months after recorded deed

Filed 3 days after notification

City Manager acknowledged error - never corrected

PinkCity errors • BlueOwner/Agent • Not one fact contested by the City SECTION 1: PROPORTIONALITY

Address: 534 St. Joseph St. Phone: E-mail: Owner Attestation: • The dwelling unit will be operated in conformance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 99.5 Owner Signature: Date: 4/23/2024

9Jt-E\t 1668

EU Ill"•

Short-Term Rental License

Short-Term Rental License

534 ST JOSEPH ST SAUGATUCK, Ml 49453

534 ST JOSEPH ST SAUGATUCK, Ml 49453

Unit: The Farm House

Owner: MADHAVA RAKESH M & POPE JENNIFER Responsible Party: BELLA VITA VACATION RENTALS Maximum Occupancy: 8

This propcrq· has mer chc inspccdon criteria of rhc Saug:uuck Township Pirc Districc and is licensed as an approved Short•Term RemaI b) the City of Saugatuck. Short-Tenn Rentals may be subject to private restriction,;. It is your responsib1liry to confirm compliance.

Unit: ADU Owner: MADHAVA RAKESH M & POPE JENNIFER Responsible Party: BELLA VITA VACATION RENTALS Maximum Occupancy: 4 This property has met die inspection criteria of the Sall!,"'tuck Township Fire District and is licensed as an approved Short-Tenn Rental by the City of S:;1;vg.:.t1,1ck. Shot't-Ten•n RemnJs mny be subject to privntc rcstrictio,,s. h is )'O\lr rcsponsibiliry ro confinn cornpliancc.

Valid Through 07/05/2025 UQ!NSll NUM8£1t CSTR Lice11se-240021

Valid Throu gh 07/05/2025 LICENSE NlfM8flt CSYR Lic.:cns:c-240024

R)'ll1 O.n:.uruns • b)ruig ,\drunrSIQtot

Section 1: Tringali •

STR task force member - helped write this ordinance

44 properties managed - 43 retain their licenses

No owner error

''The error was mine, not his.'' - Kevin Tringali, Bella Vita Vacation Rentals, March 19, 2026

SECTION 1: PROPORTIONALITY

Section 1: Proportionality ERRORS

City

Wrong owner. Wrong email. Never corrected.

Agent

Single keystroke

Owner

None

CONSEQUENCE

None Permanent loss.

No amnesty.

Everything

SECTION 1: PROPORTIONALITY

Section 1: Filing Date Same agent. Same day. Same reason. FILED

PROPERTY

EXPIRED

OUTCOME

8/4/25

534Joseph

7/5/25

Excluded

8/4/25

719 Pleasant

8/9/25

Amnesty

9/7/25

651 Holland

9/30/25

Amnesty

9/12/25

1010 Holland

9/30/25

Amnesty

10/7/25

1021 Holland

10/16/25

Amnesty

12/30/25

955 Holland

1/20/26

Amnesty

1/7/26

580 Mason

10/28/25

Excluded

534 Joseph had expired July 5. None of the other properties had lapsed. The only variable: a City-assigned date. August 1 was the City's first correct contact with Madhava. It triggered every amnesty filing that followed.

SECTION 1: PROPORTIONALITY

Section 1: The Preamble The ordinance's own stated purpose describes Madhava's situation "... to provide a narrow exception for licenses that lapsed due to a failure to timely submit a renewal

application... 11

Madhava's license lapsed - due to failure to timely submit

Criterion 2 requires filing before expiration

Amnesty recipients' licenses had not yet lapsed when they filed - Madhava's had

The preamble describes the exception as for owners whose licenses lapsed. The criterion excludes those owners. The conflict is on the face of the document.

SECTION 1: PROPORTIONALITY

STR LICENSING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Ordinance 260209-A - preamble placed beside Criterion 2 of §99.SB(B)(a)

Preamble

§99.58(B)(a)

An ordinance to amend the City of Saugatuck's Short-Term Rental Licensing Ordinance, Ordinance No. 240229-B, as amended, to update provisions regarding the renewal of STR Licenses to provide a fixed renewal date for issued licenses, to establish an application window in which renewal applications can be submitted, to provide an exception for ·waivers based on extraordinary circumstances, and, in recognition of some apparent confi,sion surrounding annual renewal deadUnes under previous Ordinance language, to provide a narrow exception for licenses that lapsed due to a failure to timely submit a renewal application to reapplyfor a license ifcertain criteria are met, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. a shmt-term rental license if the following applies: I) the sh01t-te1m 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 othe1wise 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-te1m 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

The Letter Outside counsel produced a competent legal analysis. The intent is not to litigate the entire matter.

There are specific representations in this letter this Council should examine.

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine

Section 2: What the Letter Does Not Address •

License transmitted to address not in the application

Wrong owner - acknowledged by City Manager - never corrected

Reliance acts after January 7 - lease renewal, international travel

§99.64(8) uses "may include" - illustrative, not a closed list

Self-enforcement standard despite errors in the city record

Inconsistency with the need for the city to provide education and amend the ordinance causing confusion

"There was no requirement for us to e-mail or send a letter about this but we wanted to provide additional education." - Ryan Cummins, City Manager

SECTION 2: THE LETTER

Transparency of Drafting What changed between January 7 and February 9? The public record does not say. "In the representative system, the reason for everything must publicly appear." - Thomas Paine

Section 3: January 7 to February 9 January 7 - On the Record

Council confirmed amnesty for nine Outside counsel: legally defensible for all nine This Council acknowledged owners were making business decisions based on its direction No pre-expiration filing criterion discussed or voted on

January 7 ➔ February 9

Pre-expiration criterion appears in February 4 draft - first time publicly No Council discussion of which properties it would exclude

February 9 - The Vote

"Do we have a list?" - asked immediately before the vote Two cannot be renewed - vote proceeds without deliberation Council members surprised afterward

SECTION 3: TRANSPARENCY

Section 3: ''Later Clarified'' Two words. No further explanation in the public record. The preamble says the exception is for licenses that lapsed. The criterion excludes owners whose licenses had lapsed. One of these reflects Council intent. The other does not. The record shows no: •

Meeting where this criterion was discussed

Council direction to include it

Update to the preamble reflecting it

If the Council directed this - when and where? If not - on whose authority was it included?

SECTION 3: TRANSPARENCY

Path Forward Two proposals. Both on the record. Either resolves this.

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason." - Thomas Paine

Section 4: Extraordinary Circumstances Direction to Grayson Moore to find EC exists under §99.64(8).

No ordinance amendment required.

Documented record:

License to wrong address - wrong owner - never corrected

Agent error - owner had no knowledge

City notification arrived after expiration - pre-expiration filing impossible

Filed within 3 days of notification

SECTION 4: PATH FORWARD

Section 4: Legislative Amendment One clause added to §99.SS(B)(a): A DD

CURRENT

"... filed after the renewal deadline but before the license expired; and"

Hard stop date unchanged

All other conditions unchanged

Self-executing upon publication

"... or within 30 days of City's written notification of expiration, consistent with §99.SB(E); and"

SECTION 4: PATH FORWARD

For the STR Community Whatever the outcome - this record should answer: •

When and how can a grandfathered license be permanently lost?

What does retaining a local agent protect - and not protect?

How does the EC process work and what standard applies?

Every STR owner in this community deserves answers on the record.

PATH FORWARD

"These are the times that try men's souls... but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

I am not asking this Council to agree with me. I am asking each member to govern - openly, on the record.

I think we came up with some really good solutions."

- Mayor Anderson, January 7, 2026

Two proposals.

The authority exists.

Lefs resolve this.

Questions for the Council For the record - andfor every STR owner in this community. 1.

On January 7, did you understand amnesty covered all nine properties?

On February 9, did you understand the specific rationale under which properties were being excluded?

3. The preamble says the exception is for licenses that lapsed. The criterion excludes owners whose licenses lapsed. Which provision reflects Council intent - and when was that decided? 4.

Five other properties received amnesty. The only variable is a City-assigned expiration date. What is the rational basis for different outcomes?

The City sent three rounds of voluntary outreach. None reached Madhava. What impact does that have on the Council's decision?

When an owner retains a qualified agent and that agent makes an error the owner had no knowledge of - what protection does that provide?

Is either proposal acceptable - and if not, where is that finding on the public record?

What circumstances allow permanent loss of a grandfathered STR license with no cure pathway? The STR community needs to know.

QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL

DOC U M E NT P U LLO UT

N2 1 0

FSBR cover email - "St. Jospeh" misspelling in Re: line - callback to Slide 2

INSERT DOCUMENT IMAGE HERE