Buying a Holland Rental in 2026: Underwrite $32,326, Not Saugatuck
Updated: Aug 25
Holland, Michigan sits on Lake Macatawa a few miles from the Lake Michigan shoreline, close enough to Saugatuck that buyers comparing West Michigan lakeshore towns sometimes fold the two markets together in a pitch deck without meaning to. It's an understandable mistake and an expensive one: Holland and Saugatuck are separately published markets with genuinely different typical years, and a DSCR conversation that starts from a blended West Michigan number is underwriting a market that doesn't actually exist.
This guide stays inside verified figures from the published research and live market data - it is not legal advice, and it does not guess ADR, occupancy, or fee figures the underlying data doesn't support. Holland's own published year sits at about $32,326 across 104 listings for the August 2025 through July 2026 vintage, with ADR at $324, occupancy at 40.9 percent, and RevPAR at $131. That figure, not Saugatuck's separately published $48,089, is where a Holland buyer's DSCR math should start. This is not legal advice.
Start DSCR Math on Holland's Own Published Year
Underwrite from about $32,326 across 104 listings, with ADR at $324, occupancy at 40.9 percent, and RevPAR at $131 for the August 2025 through July 2026 vintage. This is Holland's own number - say it in plain language on the underwriting note or listing, and if any neighbor figure appears alongside it for context, keep that figure labeled rather than blended into the same line.
Average stay length near 4.9 nights and average lead time near 65 days shape cash-flow timing more honestly than a neighbor-market average ever could. A buyer modeling booking pace and turnover costs should use these specific numbers rather than assumptions imported from a market with a different typical guest.
Fifty-six of Holland's 104 listings are set to accept stays of thirty nights or longer - a setting fact worth noting for buyers considering a longer-stay strategy, but not a substitute for the $32,326 typical year when the plan is a standard short-term rental model.
Keep Saugatuck, Grand Haven, Douglas, and Fennville on Their Own Lines
Saugatuck's own published year sits at about $48,089 - a genuinely different figure that stays on its own line and never gets folded into Holland's note, no matter how close the two towns sit on a map. Grand Haven's cluster of 116 listings publishes about $28,473, Douglas publishes about $35,017, and Fennville publishes about $53,922 - four separate West Michigan lakeshore markets, four separate figures, none of them interchangeable with Holland's own $32,326.
A buyer who splits Saugatuck's higher figure into a blended "West Michigan lakeshore" number and applies part of it to a Holland bid is underwriting a market that doesn't exist on paper. Separate lines in any comparison document protect a financing conversation from exactly this kind of accidental guess - a lender or partner reviewing the underwriting deserves to see which figure belongs to which town.
Identify City Versus Township Before You Bid
City versus township jurisdiction identification comes before underwriting and before any marketing planning - a wrong map line creates wrong desk expectations and, downstream, wrong revenue assumptions built on a rule framework that doesn't actually apply to the parcel. Confirm the parcel's actual jurisdiction on the map before pasting anyone's typical year into a purchase model.
City of Holland's Community and Neighborhood Services department, at 270 S River, is the relevant desk for Certificate of Compliance conversations and any questions about the city's occupancy-cap framework. These are rules-companion facts that belong in diligence, not evidence of a stronger peak season - a Certificate of Compliance requirement says nothing about demand, only about the compliance process a buyer will need to complete.
Respect the Real Peak and the Real Hole in the Model
Holland's peak-3 months are August, June, and July, with August the strongest of the three; January is the published hole. A model that smooths every month into Saugatuck-like strength, or that assumes a flatter year than the data supports, will miss Holland's actual published shape and overstate cash flow in the slower months.
Chicago as a guest origin market and Grand Rapids as a drive-time reference are genuine travel color worth knowing, but they are not a metro purchase year to import into the underwriting sheet. Seasonality belongs in the underwriting narrative the same way it belongs on a listing calendar - named explicitly, not assumed to be even across twelve months.
What the Supply Trend on the Companion Market Means for Timing
The companion market context notes supply up 57.6 percent year over year alongside revenue down 25.6 percent - a combination worth reading carefully rather than glossing over. Rising supply paired with falling revenue typically signals a market absorbing new listings faster than demand is growing, which affects how a new buyer should think about ramp-up time and realistic occupancy in year one.
This companion figure is explicitly labeled as describing a related but distinct market context, not Holland's own core sample - the same labeling discipline that applies to Saugatuck, Grand Haven, Douglas, and Fennville applies here too. A buyer should note the direction of the trend as useful context for timing and competitive intensity, without importing the exact percentage into Holland's own $32,326 baseline as though it were a direct adjustment.
The practical takeaway for a 2026 buyer: a market absorbing meaningful new supply typically rewards a property that's genuinely differentiated - accurate, specific listing copy, real amenities clearly described - over one competing purely on price in a more crowded field. This is a marketing and positioning question as much as an underwriting one.
Independent Operators Still Work This Shore
Companion data places one independent operator, Rob, at 9 listings, with professional management share near 23.1 percent in the broader companion market - the shore is not closed to independent buyers who plan to self-manage or work with a small local team. Underwriting assumptions that require institutional-scale management everywhere overstate the actual barrier to entry.
Independence here still means underwriting operations honestly: turnover costs, January's genuine softness, and the time a compliance process like the Certificate of Compliance actually takes. Independent ownership is a realistic path on this shore; it isn't a shortcut around the same operating discipline any short-term rental purchase requires.
A Certificate of Compliance Is a Rules Fact, Not a Peak Signal
The City of Holland's Certificate of Compliance process and any occupancy-cap context that comes up in diligence conversations are compliance facts - they describe a process a buyer needs to complete, not evidence of stronger demand or a reason to assume a higher achievable rate. Confirm current requirements directly with the city or a qualified professional; this page is not legal advice and does not describe the compliance process in exhaustive detail.
Do not translate a compliance status - whether a cap is currently full, or whether a specific type of registration is available - into an assumption about higher ADR inside the purchase model. Those are two unrelated questions, and conflating them produces an underwriting error that has nothing to do with the actual market data.
Origin Stories Are Travel Color, Not Purchase Comps
Chicago as a common guest origin, and Grand Rapids as a nearby drive-time reference, explain who is likely to visit Holland - they do not rewrite Holland's own $32,326 published sample. A buyer should not import metro hotel ADR logic or a Chicago-market revenue assumption into a lakeshore short-term rental underwriting sheet just because guests are traveling from that metro.
Keep travel-origin notes light and clearly labeled as color if they're mentioned in a purchase memo at all. The purchase year that matters for DSCR math is Holland's own published sample, not the highway or metro area that happens to deliver guests to the door.
What a Holland Buying Memo Can Genuinely Claim
A defensible Holland buying memo can claim the town's own labeled typical year, its published peak-and-hole seasonal shape, its average stay length near 4.9 nights, and the specific city-versus-township identification work a buyer needs to complete before bidding. Each of these is grounded in a specific, citable figure or a specific compliance question with a real answer.
What it cannot claim is Saugatuck's dollars, an unlabeled neighbor average, or a compliance fact dressed up as evidence of stronger peak demand. When a memo already keeps those lines clean and separate, the honest move is to stop decorating it with additional optimism - bring the live comps sheet to the conversation if any neighbor year still appears to be sitting inside Holland's own underwriting line.
Read the Sample Size Before You Trust the Number
Holland's 104-listing sample is a meaningfully larger base than some of its labeled neighbors, and that size matters for how much confidence a buyer should place in the $32,326 figure versus a smaller sample elsewhere. A 104-listing sample smooths out some of the noise a single unusually strong or weak property can introduce into a smaller market's typical-year figure.
This doesn't mean the number is guaranteed to repeat exactly for a specific new purchase - it means it's a defensible starting point for underwriting, more so than a figure drawn from a dozen listings where one outlier property could be skewing the whole sample. A buyer should still expect their own specific property's performance to vary from the market average based on location within Holland, property condition, and management quality.
The same logic applies when weighing Holland's figure against a labeled neighbor's. Grand Haven's cluster of 116 listings and Holland's 104 are both reasonably large samples worth taking seriously on their own terms; a much smaller neighbor sample deserves more caution before being treated as equally reliable, even when it's correctly labeled and kept on its own separate line.
Build the Underwriting Timeline Around the Compliance Process
A Certificate of Compliance process, wherever it applies, takes real time to complete - inspections to schedule, documentation to gather, a city department's own processing queue to move through. A buyer who assumes this process happens instantly, or who doesn't budget time for it in the purchase-to-first-booking timeline, risks a gap between closing and revenue that the DSCR model didn't originally account for.
Confirming the City of Holland's current process and realistic timeline directly with Community and Neighborhood Services at 270 S River, before making an offer, lets a buyer build that lag into the underwriting rather than discovering it as a surprise after closing. This is a scheduling and cash-flow question as much as a compliance one, and it deserves the same attention in the model as the seasonal revenue pattern does.
A buyer working with a lender should also confirm whether the lender's own underwriting requires proof that this compliance process is complete, or substantially underway, before closing - a requirement that varies by lender and is worth clarifying early rather than discovering at the closing table.
Building a short buffer into the projected first-year cash flow for this exact gap - the weeks between closing and a fully compliant, fully listed property - is a more honest model than assuming full-speed bookings from day one. A buyer who underwrites a conservative ramp-up and beats it looks better on paper than one who underwrote an optimistic ramp-up and missed it.
Treat Every Figure as a Starting Point for Confirmation
Every dollar figure in this guide - Holland's $32,326, Saugatuck's $48,089, Grand Haven's $28,473, and the rest - reflects a specific published vintage and should be confirmed against the most current available data before it enters a final underwriting decision. Market data updates over time, and a buyer relying on a figure that's aged past its stated vintage risks underwriting against a year that's no longer representative of current conditions.
This is a genuinely different caution from the mash-year problem this guide spends most of its attention on. Even a correctly labeled, town-specific figure can go stale simply from the passage of time, independent of whether it was ever blended with a neighbor's data. Both risks - blending and staleness - deserve separate checks before a number goes into a lender submission, and a buyer who confirms both is submitting a file a lender's underwriter can approve with confidence rather than one that invites follow-up questions. This same habit of confirming current figures directly, rather than relying on whatever vintage first appeared in an early research pass, is worth repeating at every major decision point in the purchase - offer, financing application, and closing - since each stage is far enough apart in time that a figure genuinely can shift, and a buyer who catches that shift early avoids an uncomfortable renegotiation later in the process.
Underwrite the Town You're Actually Buying Into
The failure mode worth retiring before the offer goes in: splitting Saugatuck's $48,089 into Holland's $32,326 and underwriting a blended West Michigan year that doesn't describe either town accurately. Every neighbor figure that appears in the diligence process - Saugatuck, Grand Haven, Douglas, Fennville - should stay on its own labeled line through closing, not just in the first draft of the memo.
A buyer who keeps Holland's own $32,326, its own peak-3 of August, June, and July, and its own January hole at the center of the model is underwriting the actual town on the actual parcel. That discipline is worth more to the deal than any amount of neighbor-market optimism borrowed from a stronger-performing town down the shore.
Related Reading
These related Holland pages keep $32,326, city-versus-township halls, Saugatuck neighbor years, and Rob-9 labeled so a bid packet stays on this driveway.
Frequently Asked Questions
What year should Holland DSCR math start from?
About $32,326 across 104 listings, with ADR at $324, occupancy at 40.9 percent, and RevPAR at $131 for the August 2025 through July 2026 vintage. Average stay is near 4.9 nights and lead time near 65 days. Do not start from Saugatuck's separately published $48,089.
How should Saugatuck and other neighbor towns appear in a buying memo?
On their own separate, clearly labeled lines - Saugatuck about $48,089, Grand Haven's cluster of 116 listings about $28,473, Douglas about $35,017, and Fennville about $53,922. Never fold any of these into Holland's own underwriting line, since each describes a genuinely different market.
Why identify city versus township jurisdiction before bidding?
Wrong jurisdiction identification creates wrong desk expectations and wrong compliance assumptions downstream, which can affect the entire purchase timeline. Confirm the parcel's actual jurisdiction on the map before pasting anyone's typical year into the underwriting model, and route Certificate of Compliance questions to the correct city desk.
Which months shape Holland's published seasonal calendar?
Peak-3 is August, June, and July, with August the strongest; January is the published hole. A model that smooths every month into a flatter or Saugatuck-like pattern will overstate cash flow in Holland's genuinely slower months.
Is Holland's shore closed to independent, self-managed buyers?
No. Companion data shows at least one independent operator running 9 listings, with professional management share near 23.1 percent in the broader market - independents genuinely operate here. That doesn't authorize importing a stronger neighbor market's revenue assumptions; it just means self-management is a realistic path.
Does a Certificate of Compliance signal stronger seasonal demand?
No. The City of Holland's Certificate of Compliance and any occupancy-cap context are compliance facts describing a required process, not evidence of higher achievable rates. Confirm current requirements directly with the city's Community and Neighborhood Services department at 270 S River or a qualified professional.
Do Chicago or Grand Rapids guest-origin patterns change the purchase year?
No. They're genuine travel color explaining who's likely to visit, not a metro purchase year to import into the model. A Chicago-market revenue assumption or metro hotel ADR logic doesn't belong in a Holland lakeshore short-term rental underwriting sheet.
How many Holland listings are set up for stays of 30-plus nights?
Fifty-six of the 104 listings in the published sample are set to accept longer stays - a useful fact for a buyer considering that strategy specifically, but not a substitute for the $32,326 typical year when the plan is a standard short-term rental model.
What's the main underwriting mistake buyers should avoid in this market?
Splitting Saugatuck's $48,089 into Holland's $32,326 and underwriting a blended West Michigan year that describes neither town accurately. Keep every neighbor figure on its own labeled line and start DSCR math from Holland's own published sample.
Where does Certificate of Compliance diligence actually point a buyer?
To the City of Holland's Community and Neighborhood Services department at 270 S River, in the context of confirming current process before a bid. Confirm requirements directly with the city or a qualified professional - this page is not legal advice and does not describe the full compliance process.
Work with Crest & Cove Creative
Holland and Saugatuck sit close enough on the map that buyers fold them into one West Michigan number without meaning to. Only one of those figures describes the town you're actually bidding on.
We help Holland buyers underwrite the town's own published year and its city-versus-township identification requirements, without borrowing Saugatuck's stronger numbers. Bring the comps sheet if any neighbor town's dollars still appear inside your Holland underwriting line.
Reach out at crestcove.co or (256) 998-7502.
Comments