Proposed 2018 Rate Increase

The Cherryland accounting team has completed a cost of service study and a 10-year financial forecast. Internally, staff has debated our options for a rate increase in light of the results. We have discussed them again with your board of directors. The next step is to talk to you, the members of Cherryland Electric Cooperative.

What kind of rate increase are we going to be talking about? The proposed increase is a change in the monthly availability charge for residential meters. My recommendation to the board is to move this charge from $15 per month to $18 per month. For general service accounts, I will be suggesting a $2 per month increase. This will go into effect in the first quarter of 2018.

Obviously, the percentage of this increase will be determined by the size of your monthly bill. Based on average usage, a three to four percent increase in the monthly bill will be seen by 75 percent of our residential members. Higher than average users will see less and lower than average users will see more.

Why $3? When we look at all the costs involved with making electricity available to you at the flip of a switch, we come up with an availability charge of more than $27 per month. I believe an incremental change is more palatable to our members than a huge $12 per month change. The $3 gets us the revenue our studies say we need to maintain a prudent financial condition for at least the next three years.

Also, if we were to go to the full $27, it would require a sizeable drop in the monthly energy charge to avoid generating excess revenues. A lower energy charge would greatly reduce the incentive to conserve energy. Due to state energy conservation mandates and a desire to maintain level wholesale power costs, I feel like it is better to keep energy charges at today’s level.

There will also be a revenue neutral change to your monthly bill. Today, you see an energy charge and a power supply cost recovery (PSCR) charge. The energy charge is fixed and does not vary from month to month. The PSCR charge is set monthly and has been used to balance our budgeted wholesale power supply costs with actual charges incurred each month.

While the PSCR allowed us to respond to variations in power supply costs, it hasn’t changed much over the last few years and thus, should really be rolled up into the permanent energy charge. Our short-term outlook for wholesale power looks very stable for the next couple years.

So, for now, we will simplify your bill by combining the energy charge and the present (and long used) PSCR charge into one line item on your bill. This will appear like we increased the energy charge, but in reality, you will be paying the same price as the PSCR line will go to zero for at least the next 12–24 months.

As you will see noted in the “Co-op News” section on page 4 of this magazine, there will be a 5:30 p.m. informational meeting regarding the proposed changes for all members at cooperative headquarters on October 12. On October 16, there will be another meeting at the cooperative at 9 a.m. If neither of these dates work for you, we are happy to come to your home, township, coffee shop or have a private conversation at our office at your convenience.

I look forward to the upcoming member meetings. Your calls and questions are welcome at any time as well. Rate increases are not fun for anyone, but if we all communicate, we can make the best of it and move your cooperative forward on solid financial ground.

About the Author:

62 Comments

  1. Mike October 4, 2017 at 4:10 pm - Reply

    A flat increase of $3 effects people who are already using little power and trying to save energy much more then people who don’t.

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:21 pm - Reply

      I don’t believe that it does. When I look at the usage of many low income homes, I see energy usage that is higher than average. Raising the kwh charge will cost these people more than $3 in many cases. Even so, it still goes back to having rates that are closer to the cost of service. Cost of service based rates are fair to everyone regardless of income or usage patterns.

  2. Patrick Herman October 4, 2017 at 4:16 pm - Reply

    Why not just increase energy charge per unit, that way those that use more pay more. That would lead to more conservation by consumers.

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm - Reply

      We want to have rates that are as fair as possible. We are a not for profit utility that strives to achieve rates close to the actual cost of service. Raising the energy charge alone is simply not fair. In reality, many of our low income homes use higher than an average home. Raising the kWh charge would affect them more adversely than other members (my opinion based on my knowledge of typical industry usage). Charging those that use more a higher price is not a fair system.

  3. Janine Montgomery October 4, 2017 at 4:23 pm - Reply

    Good afternoon,
    Thank you for the advance notice of the increase. Question for clarification – is there just ONE increase of $3.00 which you are explaining as a 3% increase for 75% of the members? OR is there a $3 increase AND a 3% increase. I would like to be sure I understand paragraphs 2 and 3 correctly. I am reading it as ONE increase of $3.00 which translates to about a 3% increase in the bill total depending on your bill size. Am I reading it correctly?

    Thank you.

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:15 pm - Reply

      There is just one increase – a flat $3 per month. The common question we get on the phone is “What is the percentage increase?” Thus, we tried to answer that question up front. I apologize for any confusion.

  4. CARL HAMMOND October 4, 2017 at 4:31 pm - Reply

    Do what ever you think best.

  5. Ryan Nugent October 4, 2017 at 4:39 pm - Reply

    I completed understand that the cost of business will always increase and understand your needs to justify a rate hike. However why can’t a rate hike be put forth on over all kWhr consumption? I don’t understand why just being hooked to the grid incurs a larger penalty. Also most importantly it does not incentivize lowering my personal BTU consumption if I know I’m paying largely the same rate. Or I could be mis-interpreting the statement, please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:14 pm - Reply

      “Cost of service” means just that – what does it cost to serve a given rate class at CEC? Our numbers determine that simply to have a system ready to use power, it is costing us $28 per month. Again, this is whether you use 1 kWh or a 1,000 kWh. Your availability charge is currently $15 per month. If we raised that to $28, we would generate far more revenue than we need at this time. Thus, we are recommending that a $3 per month charge is all that is necessary. I don’t think of it as a penalty. I think of it as a small step closer to the $28 that it actually costs to have a delivery system available. We could raise the availability charge higher and lower the kWh charge but this action would only reduce the incentive to conserve. I don’t want to reduce the present incecentive to conserve.

  6. Virginia Abate October 4, 2017 at 4:48 pm - Reply

    I live at Brookside Commons. I am a senior, single mom with a special needs adult child. We are poor. How much will this increase cost us, per month?

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:09 pm - Reply

      This increase will cost you $3 per month. It will not go into effect until the first or second quarter of 2018.

  7. Wendy Young October 4, 2017 at 4:49 pm - Reply

    I think $3. Is fair … anything over that is surplus with how many Cherryland customers total there are!!! That’s plenty of extra I’m sure!!!

  8. JJ Nemitz October 4, 2017 at 4:54 pm - Reply

    I believe this not a fair way of increasing revenue. Why are we being penalized for using less electricity? Those of us who care about the environment and conserving our resources are going to be charged more and higher amount for less usage. “Higher than average users will see less and lower than average users will see more.” What a great way to encourage conserving our resources! You are condoning wasteful behaviors of our resources! Yes, of course I am one of those individuals who uses 3-5 kw a day and I am aware of my resources and want to conserve them. Please find a better method to promote good stewardship, not bad practices. “Due to state energy conservation mandates and a desire to maintain level wholesale power costs, I feel like it is better to keep energy charges at today’s level.” Unfortunately, you make no sense! You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and smoke and mirrors here. You are charging more for customers that use less electricity and yet you want to conserve? Great way to confuse us all!
    In addition, I live on a TAP LINE street that has not been updated since the 1950-60’s . If it takes about 39 years to pay off electric poles, lines–my street is has paid for itself without ANY IMPROVEMENTS well beyond the 39 years.
    I know you will not reward those of us who are conservative and this will not change what you are going to do in any way. This is totally unfair and not a good practice.
    In the UK they have switches on outlets, so ghosting is minimal. You publish articles about saving electricity. Bob Villa just published 15 ways to cut your electric bill and NOW YOU ARE GOING TO CHARGE US MORE FOR USING LESS! Please reconsider this wasteful and poor role modeling and punishing user that are good stewards. How unfair!

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:08 pm - Reply

      I don’t believe you are being penalized. Conservation was at the heart of this decision. You see, if we went to true cost of service rates, the availability charge would go to $28 per month and the energy charge would be somewhere around 9 cents. By leaving the kWh charge where it has been, we kept the incentive to conserve the same. As far as your neighborhood being paid for, there is a strong substation and protection system that has been upgraded to serve your neighborhood. You are not served solely by the equipment outside your window. There is a significant infrastructure in place to deliver the power to your home.

  9. Fran Griffin October 4, 2017 at 5:13 pm - Reply

    Sure hope Social Security for older people will get a descent raise this year. Propane up, healthcare premiums up, RX premiums up. Cost of lifesaving drugs over the tops. Now electricity……
    Sure doesn’t help:(

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 5:23 pm - Reply

      I am sincerely sorry for the added burden. By the time this increase goes into effect in 2018, it will have been almost 7 years since the last previous general rate increase. I hope you can find some appreciation in that fact.

  10. Sharie Weber October 4, 2017 at 6:01 pm - Reply

    I’m paying way too much now in the availability charge per month because I have two meters. I have one for my house and one for my pole barn. I can barely afford that now. I have mostly gas appliances and I don’t use that much electricity but for my small house and pole barn (what little I use in it) is way more than others with a bigger house it’s crazy. There has got to be other ways to increase the revenue without raising prices

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 6:21 pm - Reply

      You should ask an electrician to look at the cost of combining the house and pole barn services. We have many members with both that have just one meter. Obviously, every situation is different.

      Unfortunately, we have only one product to sell. There are no other revenue streams. We have the availability charge and the energy charge.

  11. gordie la pointe October 4, 2017 at 6:06 pm - Reply

    This seems fair if in fact you have not have a rate increase in 7 years. I only wish our local county and township boards were as frugal as they seem to be proposing a millage increase each and every year for one service or another. BATA, DVA, etc.

  12. Roy Aydelotte October 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm - Reply

    Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Rates overall are some of the lowest we have seen after living in 14 areas across the lower 48.

  13. Ruth Lyon October 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm - Reply

    I will be selling my home in 2018. I agree with the raise. I appreciate what all of you do to keep us up and running.

  14. Dale Smith October 4, 2017 at 6:22 pm - Reply

    The increase seems reasonable and I understand the logic in passing along the costs this way instead of a lower consumption rate.

  15. John Wierenga October 4, 2017 at 6:30 pm - Reply

    I oppose an increase of the availability charge based on the observation (1) it does not promote conservation and (2) poses an undue burden on residential customers.

    An increase in the use rate is preferable and should be advanced if needed.

    I will pay extra for renewable energy! Global warming poses a certain, existential threat to mankind of unprecedented proportions. The science is clear and well founded.

    Renewable energy – congratulations on a job well done!!!!

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 6:37 pm - Reply

      On January 1, 2018, Cherryland will be 18% renewable and when you add in our nuclear portfolio at that time, we will be 56% carbon free. I am unable to find any other utility in Michigan that can match our carbon free numbers. I have not looked but I will bet there a few in the country that can match our carbon free number.

      I believe that raising the availability charge and leaving the energy charge at present levels does indeed promote conservation.

      You are well aware of our community solar program where all members are free to pay more for renewable energy.

  16. Niki Conraths October 4, 2017 at 6:44 pm - Reply

    Sounds good !

  17. Dave White October 4, 2017 at 6:51 pm - Reply

    We are retired and don’t get a raise in salary every year, yet our costs of living keep going up. Why don’t you and the other monopolies put your greed on the shelf and focus on cutting your costs instead of passing them on to us. Your top management should be fired if they can’t figure out how to lower your costs. That’s what would happen in most businesses.

    • Tony Anderson October 4, 2017 at 6:58 pm - Reply

      I would politely ask that you consider a run of almost 7 years without an increase as a sign that we have attempted to cut costs for many years. There simply becomes a time when it can’t be done. If you apply your increase over the 7 year period, I am confident you will find that electricity has increased far below the rate of inflation.

      There are 900 electric cooperatives across 47 of the United States. In 2016, Cherryland was the best in the nation with a ratio of 630+ meters per employee. It is a sign of lean operations that any business would be proud of.

  18. Rick October 4, 2017 at 8:04 pm - Reply

    I have been living downstate near Lansing for 30 years and dealing with Consumers Powers, but have had temporary CEC service for over 15 in a three seasons cottage. I greatly appreciate the communication and explanation given by CEC leadership and the cost for doing business ultimately increases for all entities. Given the explanation and length of time since the last increase i believe you have laid out a fair and equitable increase plan. Continue to do the good work of providing the needed service; Consumers Energy should follow your lead.

  19. Jennifer Tremble October 4, 2017 at 8:09 pm - Reply

    Gradual is always more palatable. Frankly, we’ve been pretty blessed by all of the measures our cooperative has taken in the 19 years we’ve been members.

    Thank you for all your hard work to keep the lights on!

    • CG October 4, 2017 at 9:23 pm - Reply

      I agree!

  20. Don Pahl October 4, 2017 at 9:12 pm - Reply

    Great way to express the need and solution for Cherryland financial stability. You kept it simply and understandable. Great job. Don

  21. CG October 4, 2017 at 9:23 pm - Reply

    I think this is fair.

  22. Art October 4, 2017 at 10:52 pm - Reply

    “Availability Charge” sounds like a fancy term to charge more money. It loosely translate into a fee I have to pay just to be allowed to purchase your service. Do I have the option of switching providers if I choose?

    • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 7:03 am - Reply

      There is no option to switch providers. Cherryland rates for 700 kwh are 10% lower than Consumers Energy. The difference only gets larger as you use more energy.

  23. Harvey Yates October 4, 2017 at 11:40 pm - Reply

    Unfortunately, unlike most businesses, you have no competition, so you can raise your rates however much you want, whenever you want…

  24. Gary Atkinson October 5, 2017 at 7:37 am - Reply

    There have been a lot of people who have been working very hard to lower the amount of energy that they use, and also investing in appliances that consume less energy as well. Yet those people will be paying a larger percentage of cost for the availability charge. Why not make the availability charge a percentage of the energy that you use. Buy doing this everybody will be paying the same percentage across the board. This is called being fair I believe.

    My other concern is that business customers are not getting an increase at all. They get a better rate than residential customers in the first place and then don’t have to share the increased burden of the availability charge?

    If the availability was a percentage of the energy used it would encourage more energy efficiency, and if it was shared with ALL customers the true cost would not be $27.00.

    Something to consider if you desire to actually serve ALL of your customers.

    • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 7:52 am - Reply

      I can understand your logic but it does not get us closer to cost of service rates. The fact remains that there is a cost for having electricity available at the flip of a switch and there is a cost for the energy used. All members should pay the same rate for the availability of power. Under the state mandate energy conservation program, Cherryland reduced its sales by over 3 million kwhs in 2016 and will be very close to the same number in 2017. I could make a solid financial argument that the $3 increase would be less if we had the ability to sell more kwhs. Energy conservation is the right thing to do but it does have a price.

  25. Allan And Ruthanne Reiter October 5, 2017 at 8:59 am - Reply

    I’m 80 my husband is 87 with dementia shot term memory Parkinson’s & I’m the sole care taker with a bad arm that I can not lift. we r barely able to pay all our bills this month we had to pay u three hundred dollars
    To catch up on the electric now we can’t buy much food. I don’t understand how much is my bill actually going to go up the more I read the more I still have no idea. Could someone at least tell me how much?
    We r on Social Security live in Kings court pretty soon the will have 80% of the SS the problem is everything goes up but the Social Security what in the word will happen to us?
    We have no family just the 2 of us. we r really scared we haven lived her & been customers for 17 years if we had to leave here it would kill us both we have a little dog that saves us with lots of love.
    sincerely,

    • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 9:05 am - Reply

      I am sincerely sorry for your situation. Your bill will go up just $3.00 per month. Your energy charge will remain the same. The increase will not go into effect until the 1st or 2nd quarter of 2018.

  26. Robert Welch October 5, 2017 at 9:12 am - Reply

    This seems fine with me. Better to have several increases over the years, than to be socked with one big increase all at once, especially for those of us on Social Security, where the meager increase (if any) in Social Security is usually divided up over several places, such as lot rent in Kings Court, Medicare increases, etc.

  27. Rick Barck October 5, 2017 at 9:30 am - Reply

    Has this proposal been already submitted to the MPSC? What, if anything, has been done to address the proposed increases through internal expense reductions, labor/benefit savings, or targeted cost or revenue increases (i.e. commercial vs. residential)?
    Next meeting date this subject to be addressed?

    • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 9:37 am - Reply

      Cherryland Electric Cooperative is a member regulated cooperative and not required to submit rate changes to the MPSC. We became member regulated in 2009. We operate Cherryland with just 55 employees. With a 35,000 meter system, Cherryland leads all 900 cooperatives across the U.S. in the meters per employee category. This is the best example of lean operation and efficiency that I can give you besides the fact that it has been almost 7 years since the last rate increase. Over this period of time, inflation has far exceeded a $3 per month increase.

      There is a public meeting to discuss this rate increase at 5:30 pm on October 12 at Cherryland headquarters. There is another opportunity at 9 am on October 16 at the office as well. After that, I am happy to meet with any group large or small at a location and time of their choosing.

  28. John & Mary Melvin October 5, 2017 at 10:29 am - Reply

    Consider this. We reside at 4175 Euclid Avenue, Interlochen in June , July, and August. The price of our electricity is $335 a year. For nine of these months we are paying to have it come nnected to the home. There is no electricity going into the house because it is shut off at the control panel.Now you are proposing a $3/mo increase which is 20 percent more per month and 10 percent overall, making the low user at a disadvantage and rewarding the higher users as a percentage which is the contra to other utility providers

    • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 10:42 am - Reply

      I don’t believe Cherryland is contra to other providers. The other providers that I know all have an availability charge and an energy charge. There is simply a cost to having electricity available at the flip of a switch. Cherryland has never recovered this cost completely and this $3 per month increase doesn’t get us there.

      Many utilities across the country have a seasonal rate for homes like yours. They often charge an even higher availability charge and energy charge due to the low utilization of electricity by the home. Cherryland chooses to not differentiate between seasonal and year round residential. Cost based rate making simply requires allocating costs properly to the billing components of the respective rate classifications.

  29. VNB October 5, 2017 at 10:32 am - Reply

    Sounds fair. Thank you for the in-depth explanation.

  30. Steve Perdue October 5, 2017 at 11:29 am - Reply

    Knowing you Tony, this is based on good due diligence and in the best interests of all….I appreciate the strategic process you went through.
    Best, Steve

    • Duane Kalember October 5, 2017 at 12:42 pm - Reply

      I guess that means,I as a user only 3 months of the year, I will pay and extra, 27.00 dollars for nothing, than another 3.00 per each monthly bill, while I am using, for a total in crease of 36.00 a year.

      • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 1:01 pm - Reply

        The $27 is not “for nothing”. What you are getting is a distribution system that is ready to serve you when return to the area. If we disconnected your account at the beginning of your stay and reconnected your account at the end, the service charges would far exceed the $27 increase.

  31. Kenneth McCall October 5, 2017 at 1:57 pm - Reply

    We’ve only been in Michigan a month and already a rate increase!!! I know everything has to go up in cost,but what can do?
    we’ve got to have power.

    • Tony Anderson October 5, 2017 at 2:03 pm - Reply

      Call our office at 486-9200 at ask for Energy Use Advisor Tammy Squires. She can walk through your home free of charge and talk to you about energy saving measures.

  32. jerry raymor October 5, 2017 at 4:19 pm - Reply

    This is how inflation starts ……for fixed income persons this if ANOTHER drain on income.
    The forecasted estimate for 2018 SS increase is 2.1% …………your increase is over 20% increase.
    $2 doesn’t sound like much to rich folks ……………I just don’t see how you can justify it.

    • Tony Anderson October 6, 2017 at 6:29 am - Reply

      Cherryland takes on debt to rebuild your distribution system. Cherryland too has cost increases that add up over time. We need to meet our mortgage requirements and cover our expenses. This small increase will help us do that. I regret that it has an adverse affect on some. Our intention is to be as fair as possible to every member.

  33. Arlene Rawls October 5, 2017 at 5:27 pm - Reply

    its always something to justify charging more and more money to people who cannot afford this, I find that your reasons and for that matter combining rates on a page you say is for more clarity, but it’s not. It’s far more confusing looking at a bill that has combined charges on it to be able to separate those charges and make sense of the exact increase one is paying. Unfortunately I cannot attend either of the meetings, for I would surely protest the increase, this company already has one of the highest rates for electricity as it is in the state, so now you are making sure you are the highest? Gee thanks

    • Tony Anderson October 6, 2017 at 6:33 am - Reply

      Your statement is completely not true. Cherryland rates are lower than Consumers Energy and will remain so after this increase goes into effect. TCLP is the only local utility with lower prices and it is because they have 35+ meters per mile to Cherryland’s 11 meters per mile. Cherryland is also lower than most if not all of the cooperatives in the state. This leaves just DTE for which I have no data. I respectfully request that you send me actual facts to back up your rate statement.

  34. James Hallemann October 5, 2017 at 5:56 pm - Reply

    My second home relies on Cherryland for its electricity, so obviously I’d prefer a usage increase over a flat rate monthly increase, as I’m not there all the time, but I feel that the directors have explained quite plainly the reasoning behind why they are proposing raising the rates in the manner that they are.

  35. Bob Carstens October 5, 2017 at 6:41 pm - Reply

    What relationship has the most recent energy cost increase with the cost of CEC purchasing electricity from an atomic energy source ? Will the cost of energy from an atomic energy source remain stable and not at any time exceed the cost over time of energy derived from wind, solar, and water driven sources ? I am just vaguely familiar with the fact that the latest atomic energy sources are less fraught with radiation related risks … but i am uncertain regarding the degree of or amount of radiation risks that remain with atomic energy source generators of electricity. It is my impression that some of the radioactive waste from previous atomic energy generators remains in place in Michigan.

    • Tony Anderson October 6, 2017 at 6:36 am - Reply

      Through our power supplier, Wolverine Power Cooperative, Cherryland’s portfolio does have a strong nuclear component. However, Wolverine and Cherryland do not own any nuclear facilities. Wolverine simply has a power purchase agreement for a set price that is competitive with wind and solar over a 10 year period. This proposed rate increase has nothing to do with power supply. It is strictly to cover increases in operating costs for Cherryland’s distribution system.

  36. Roger October 5, 2017 at 9:57 pm - Reply

    Sorry I can’t make the public meetings–I already have commitments on those dates and times. Here’s what I’d like to say at the meetings.

    I have no objections to a rate increase, but this is totally the wrong direction to go. I don’t care a bit what is “fair” in comparing availability charges to usage charges. What I care about is the cause and effect of the fees. I’d rather see the availability fee go to zero and have all those costs covered through greater usage fees. That provides maximum incentive to conserve energy without penalizing low energy users for attaching to the grid.

    • Tony Anderson October 6, 2017 at 6:40 am - Reply

      You are right that setting an availability charge to zero and having an abnormally high energy rate would maximize the incentive to conserve. It would also put the burden of operating the Cherryland distribution system on those that use large amounts of energy. It would also burden the low income individuals with unfair costs. While you may not care about fairness, it is something I feel strongly about. I will make sure the board has ample time to read through this blog.

      • Roger October 6, 2017 at 7:31 am - Reply

        Tony, I’m glad you acknowledge that reducing availability charges would place the burden more on those who use large amounts of energy. That’s exactly what I feel we should be doing! As for burdening low income customers, I don’t see your logic there. My 78 year old mother is one of those customers. I recently invested in new windows and a refrigerator for her. (She has electric heat.) By increasing her availability charges you’re reducing the usage savings I was hoping to help her with. I’ve also invested my time through a group in my church installing insulation to reduce heating cost for some of your low income members. Increasing availability charges reduces the impact of our efforts to help them. If you’re concerned about low income customers, increasing availability charges is not the way to help them.

        • Tony Anderson October 6, 2017 at 8:23 am - Reply

          I respectfully disagree. Cherryland is not reducing the usage savings at all. We are maintaining them at the present levels. You made the investment in new windows and refrigerator knowing the savings you had then. These savings will remain. I too have invested a fair amount of time improving low income homes with energy efficiency measures through work with Freedom Builders. Again, the impact of these measures has not been reduced because we have not reduced the energy rate charged. We know that many low income homes use a higher than average amount of electricity. If we raise the energy charge, I believe they will pay far more than $3 per month in increased costs. All that said, I also have a responsibility to be fair to ALL members. Moving towards better cost of service rates is fair to all members.

  37. Liz October 6, 2017 at 8:18 am - Reply

    My bill is already high this is not great for me or anyone who also does not agree with your company. Why can’t executives take a decrease in salaries? Just putting that out there!! Not happy!

Leave A Comment