Henry's Blog

“Having served as an elected official I know firsthand what it takes to succeed in local government.

I’m delighted that Henry is running for Council, and pleased to give him my unqualified endorsement. I have had the pleasure of serving with Henry on both the Abbotsford Police Board and the Abbotsford Airport Authority. Not only is he a strong board member – he is a leader. With his track record of success, community involvement, business acumen and common sense approach I know he’ll do a great job serving the citizens of Abbotsford!”

Dave Kandal – former mayor and chair of Abbotsford Airport Authority

“I recall Henry Braun being an independent thinker when he served on the Abbotsford International Airport Authority Board. His willingness to not only research but his ability to understand the issues before decision making impressed me most. Henry is a team player but stands up for what he thinks is right, even if unpopular.

A successful, hard working and experienced business man, Henry brought a common sense approach to the boards he served on and was highly regarded by all who worked with him. He is well known for his many years of charity and volunteer work and also understands that we must strive to do better caring for the underprivileged amongst us.

I normally do not endorse a candidate running for City council but since I know Henry Braun from working with him for many years, I wish him all the very best. He’s got my vote!”

George F. Ferguson

Retired Mayor, City of Abbotsford

I recently received an e-mail from a member of City Council questioning my decision to vote “No” with respect to the Stave Lake Water Referendum.

My response was as set out below [where necessary the questioning comments of the City Councillor are highlighted in bold and placed in square brackets]:

Thank you for your email, received late on October 31. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to what I expect are questions that other Council members are also asking.

In general response to your questions, it seems that you have missed the point of my position on this very important issue. It is the Referendum itself that fails to address key needs of the voting public. As stated in my blog post on this topic: (1) the Referendum, at 185 words in a single sentence, is too complex to be understood; (2) the Referendum makes uncertain and controversial assumptions (both express and implied) regarding water needs, alternatives and timing; (3) the Referendum and available information do not disclose enough about the proposed P3 to make an informed decision. In addition, I believe that: (4) conservation efforts must be given the opportunity to work and be measured; (5) the data available does not support an immediate need to opt now for the Stave Lake alternative; (6) the implications of Mission withdrawing its support need to be better understood and considered.

Now let me respond to your specific questions and concerns:

First, let me confirm that this was a difficult decision for me, which I made only after careful consideration. I can assure you this was a principled decision based upon what I believe to be the best interests of the people of Abbotsford at this time. It was not based on political realities or personal relationships. For clarity, it was not based upon any allegations made by or any alignment with positions taken by Patricia Ross or any other candidate.

[Nevertheless, the one piece that I hope you considered is the risk factor. Had you reviewed Metro Vancouver’s experience with a traditional build model? The litigation they are in because the original contractor backed out, leaving them with a court battle, and the task of securing a second contractor. I understand the costs to the Metro taxpayers is going to be significant. One political observer noted that with respect to high water costs, “you haven’t seen anything yet”.

The Stave Lake project entails tunnelling under the original river bed, to the middle of the lake, coming up from the bottom. The risk in that alone is very great. A P3 model protects the City against a Metro Vancouver scenario; the risk is all transferred away from the City. Furthermore, the costs are nailed down in the Performance Contract prior to commencement of construction. I am not a businessman, but I have enough lifetime experiences to know that there are always “additional” costs in big projects. The AESC construction story included an unforeseen contaminated site, which added $1M. to the cost. A P3 model would protect the City from those additional costs. ]

Second, on the issue of risk, my experience in business tells me that when you assume there is no risk you are most vulnerable. No matter the mode of delivery, any project the size and complexity of the Stave Lake alternative has risk. The negative experience of Metro Vancouver with the traditional model can be weighed against the experience of other local governments using the P3 alternatives without coming to a definitive conclusion. Simply put, P3 alternatives may be viable and appropriate, but they are certainly not risk free, and may in fact create additional risk.

[I would be interested to know your counter-proposal. Deloitte has a 150-yr. history; C2MH Hill has a 60 –yr history. Both are globally respected – the best in what they do, and they come up with this recommendation. It was not City staff. The Sewer & Water Commission studied and discussed the project for about 3 years, and arrived at Stave Lake as the best option. The Commission consisted of 3 members of each Council, and at the end of their deliberations, they UNANIMOUSLY endorsed a P3 Stave Lake proposal to the two Councils combined. Take a look at who sits on that Commission; the Public Minutes are very clear that there was no doubt as to their recommendation. ]

Third, despite the apparent support of some consultants for the Stave Lake P3 alternative, for whom I have nothing but respect, there are competent and well-reasoned differences of opinion. Consultants can be wrong. They can change their views. In the same way, the Sewer & Water Commission, while comprised of respectable individuals, may not come to the same conclusions if the facts are different than presented. You have asked for my “counter proposal”. Your request misconstrues my position. I am not yet in a position, nor could I be expected to be in one, to make a “counter proposal”. That reality does nothing to erode the basis for my conclusion that at this time, under these circumstances, and for the reasons set out above, I must vote “No” to the Referendum question.

[The matter of proceeding without Mission has clouded rational arguments about the project. … Mission is a 12% partner, in terms of amount of water they use. They do not meter water in Mission; everyone pays a flat rate and uses as much as they wish. I (as well as all Council members) were elected to represent our municipality, not Mission. I will not stand by and have our supply of water jeopardized because several Councillors in Mission got cold feet at their Council Mtg., due to a vocal group of opponents, and voted against. That is their business; their residents. For Patricia to say it’s a hostile takeover that we’re involved is a gross overstatement. If anything, I would say to do nothing because of their decision, would be tantamount to being held hostage, and by a minor player in the game (12%).]

Fourth, I cannot agree that Mission, even as a 12% contributing partner, is a “minor player in the game”. As correction, I believe the correct number is 22% (refer to Tables 4.3 & 4.4, located on page 4-2 of the AMWSC Water Master Plan prepared by AECOM). To ignore or unduly minimize the importance and involvement of our neighboring community is, in my view, a mistake. At 22% of $230 million ($50.6 million), plus their annual share of operating costs, is a significant factor.

I believe that leadership, after listening to all positions with an open mind, must make tough calls, even if they are unpopular or contrary to the positions taken by friends. This is my first time to run for public office, and my intention is to do the best I can to win. However, if because of making this decision to vote “No” I lose the election, then so be it. For now, we must agree to disagree.

The campaign is now in full swing and the days are a blur, filled with all sorts of activities. Since this is my first campaign for public office, I have learned a lot. All in all, it has been a lot of work with the wonderful payoffs that I have had the opportunity to meet many more people in our community than I ever thought possible.

I also have a whole new appreciation for people who run for public office.

Today was supposed to be a down day, so that I could catch up on ‘campaign stuff’. Looking after work on our farm was not in the original plan when I launched my campaign. However, two weeks ago, my farm helper broke his foot in a motor vehicle accident and will be out of commission for 6 weeks, which means that I get to do some double duty while he recovers. Like politics, farm work may seem attractive to some at first, but it is a lot of work, some of which is far from attractive.

Up until now the cows and calves have been out in the fields and don’t need much attention. However, it is the time of year when calves need to be weaned. This is also the time when the barns need to be prepared to receive the cattle before the November rains come, which is any day now. All of the cattle will spend the next 5 months in the barns under cover on soft beds of shavings. My neighbors jokingly refer to it as the ‘cow palace’. I must admit that they have a pretty ‘cushy’ life – when it’s raining hard, they come into the barn. If the sun is out, they lay around outside on a bed of sand chewing their cud, watching the world go by. What a life! Today was the day that we picked to wean our calves. These calves born in January and February, weighing between 70 – 90 lbs. now average anywhere from 700 – 900 lbs., depending if they are heifer calves (female), or bull calves. The photo shown is of Reality 5Y (bull calf). The only way he can get at his mama’s udder is to get down on his front knees. Like any of us, there are times when we need to grow up and take responsibility for ourselves.

I actually enjoy working with the animals and doing the chores that go along with animal husbandry. It is a humbling type of work. These are times of solitude and reflection with no interruptions, other than the odd cow wanting me to scratch her back. They seem satisfied after a quick one minute back massage! They recognize my voice and know that no harm will come to them. When I call them by name, they lift up their heads and look directly at me. If I call out a second time, they generally come running, wondering what is in store for them. Sometimes, they get a treat as a reward for coming. As strange as this may sound, I have learned a lot from animals. If you try to chase them, they scatter and you will never get them to go where you want them to go. However, if you lead them, calling them by name, they will follow me. Why, because they trust me. Isn’t life kind of like that. Leadership is all about leading, not driving people from behind in order to get them to go in a certain direction or make a certain decision. Cattle instinctively know who they can trust and who they need to be wary of. Although people have a much higher IQ than cows, we seem to have the same innate ability to know who is trustworthy.

The following comment was received from Greg in reply to yesterday’s Stave Lake Water Project – Media Release post.

Greg writes, “My recent first hand experience with BC P3s convinces me that they are not magic bullets for solving govt budget problems. Corporations have an obligation to contracts and finances. Governments have a fiduciary duty to the citizens they serve. These focuses are very different.

To propose that a private corporation can take a profit in addition to providing a service and somehow do all this for less money is absurd.

In my experience most civil servants are efficient and dedicated to the well being of the taxpayer. Distracting them with contract negotiations and liaison with third parties distracts them from providing service and monitoring service delivery.

Multinational corporations hire skilled contract lawyers. To speculate that a small local government could easily match the cunning and skill these corporations bring is naive.

P3s are not the only option and not to be entered into lightly.

Choose wisely!” Greg

My reply to Greg, which is posted on the blog is as follows;

“I appreciate and agree with many of your concerns about private/public projects. However, my experience has been less one-sided. It is my view that there are times when a private Corporation can make a profit and provide a better service. Private enterprise has to be innovative and cost-effective in order to stay in business. Government does not operate by the same principles and typically doesn’t worry about going broke. There are some services that City employees do not handle as well as competitive businesses. City employees cannot be expected to be all things to all people. Of course, there are some services, such as policing and fire protection, that must be strictly controlled by the City, no matter the economics.

As far as the legal assistance retained by the City is concerned, it is my view that appropriate and cost effective expertise must be secured to protect the interests of taxpayers. That was my experience in business and, if I am elected, I will take the same approach to obtaining the right advice and representation.

Thank you for your interest in our City and its government.”

Henry Braun for Council

There are many things we can do without. Water is not one of them. Dr. Richard Wolfenden, professor of biochemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill put it this way, “To say that water is essential hardly covers it.”

Over the past weeks, I have been listening, gathering information and learning about our water situation and the Stave Lake Water plan presented to taxpayers. Along the way, I heard from many people, most of whom are opposed to the project. Some opposition seems to be for reasons other than the project itself. Concerns such as; escalating property taxes, much higher water bills, the HST, the operating deficit of the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Center, perceptions of waste in day-to-day operations (work around the City), the uncertainty in the global economy, etc., etc.

In the face of all of these issues, and without much warning, a $300 million water expansion project is submitted to referendum. People don’t like surprises, especially when they are expensive ones and from government. The result can be feelings of betrayal and anger. Much of the angst that has been generated results from a “hurry up and decide” communication strategy. Quite frankly, I do not see the need to hire a PR firm at a cost of $200,000 to provide a promotional ‘advocacy’ campaign to sell the project to the taxpayers.

Let’s look at the facts. A few years ago, our water usage on a few days of the year approached the upper limits of our existing water supply capacity. With continued growth in the residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors, at some point we will need more water… lots more. Advocates for the “Yes” vote have expressed fear that water-reliant businesses will stay away from or leave Abbotsford. Frankly, I do not know of any objective evidence to support that concern.

I appreciate why some people want to vote “No” in the upcoming referendum.

1. The 2016 deadline may not be as critical as is being made out to be. While I agree that we have a looming water issue, I am also convinced that the very recent water conservation efforts have not yet been given a full opportunity to work. Once people began to fully appreciate that Abbotsford has a ‘water issue’ and saw their ‘new’ water bills, residents very quickly began to change their use of water. It is making a difference. But we will not know what gains have been achieved until we have a full year’s data. I firmly believe that the residents of Abbotsford, if properly informed, will rise to the challenge of water conservation. Additional supply may blunt conservation efforts resulting in a short-lived and ill-considered “fix”.
2. Projections for future water usage are based on a much higher rate of development than what has been experienced during the past 2 years. The ‘boom’ decade came to an end two years ago and it may be a long time before equivalent increases in water volume needs are required again. Since development growth has declined sharply, the assumptions built into the forecast models do not reflect today’s reality.
3. We cannot count on the financial or other support of our neighbors in Mission. As of right now, Mission will not agree to share the costs of the project. Further, as I understand it, the project cannot proceed without expropriation of private land outside the borders of Abbotsford. Extra time would certainly provide a better opportunity to invite our neighbors in Mission to come back to the table, as well as give us the chance to build up our economic reserves.

I also understand why people would want to vote “Yes”. Their reasons include the following:

1. A “No” could be interpreted as the community saying emphatically: no negotiating, no amendments, no opportunity to re-examine the evidence and alternatives that might be on the table.
2. “No” will result in water rates rising by 30 – 40 percent.
3. Unless we vote “Yes” significant economic development may be seriously limited and new water-dependent industries may choose to stay away from Abbotsford. Tofino experienced an analogous situation in 2006 when, due to water shortages, tourism basically shut down. It is rumored that a major ‘wet industry’ business in Abbotsford may leave town if it can’t be assured of enough water for their product.
4. From a fire safety perspective, water flows may not be sufficient to fight a major blaze (likely during summer months). Without a secondary source for water we may remain vulnerable as a community. The present water intake at Norrish Creek was almost wiped out by a landslide a few years ago. Had that happened, we would have been coping with a major disaster.
5. A no vote would alienate current leadership as it would effectively disagree with all the work and recommendations of senior city staff and 8 of the 9 existing members of Council.
6. The process would have to start all over sometime in the reasonably near future.

Regardless of the outcome, the citizens of Abbotsford need their voice to be heard. Regardless of how they vote, I will respect their decision and work with them to the best of my ability.

Leadership requires tough decisions to be made. They must not be made carelessly or without due consideration. They must not be made based on political or personal motivation. They must be made after carefully listening to the views of others, analyzing the data available, considering the consequences, and deciding “what is best for the most”.

This has been a difficult decision for me to make. I recognize the risk that I may lose votes from people who are otherwise supportive. However, contrary to my initial views, and with the greatest of respect for those who disagree, I will be voting “no” on the referendum ballot on November 19, and urging others to do so. My primary reasons are grounded in the lengthy (185 words in a single sentence!), difficult to understand, complex and ill-defined wording of the Referendum itself.

The Referendum is too complex. I believe in keeping things as simple as reasonably possible. The Referendum is far too wordy and complex to be reasonably understood by even a well-informed voter. It seems to have been written by lawyers, for lawyers, to withstand legal attack. I have spent many hours analyzing the issues, hours that the otherwise busy voter does not have. The issues have not been simplified, but remain complex. Complexity easily leads to confusion, and a confused vote should not lead to approval for such a major project. Difficult and detailed issues such as this need to be explained fully, carefully and objectively so as to enable all voters to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. On the wording of the current Referendum, I do not believe that a “yes” vote would reflect the fully informed decision of Abbotsford residents.

1. The Referendum is narrow and limiting. It unnecessarily limits the decision-making authority of elected City Council. Even though there may be agreements and details that are not yet in place, future latitude is limited by reason of the Referendum detailed wording.

Abbotsford City Council candidate Henry Braun announced today that he will be voting ‘No’ on the Stave Lake Water question on the November 19 referendum ballot.

Since declaring his candidacy, Braun has been seeking answers to his questions about the proposed P3 water deal. ‘Over the past weeks I have been listening, gathering information and learning as much as I can about our water situation and the Stave Lake Water plan voters are being asked to decide on. Along the way I heard from many people, most of whom are opposed to the project. Some of the opposition seems to be for reasons other than the project itself’, Braun stated. ‘These include escalating property taxes, much higher water bills, the HST, operating deficit of the Entertainment and Sport Centre and the uncertainty in the global economy’.

He added, ‘There are way too many unknowns at this point. If it were my money I wouldn’t invest in the project without better information on what we are committing ourselves to – so I cannot honestly recommend that the citizens of Abbotsford approve spending tax money on this either’.

Braun believes that the residents of Abbotsford have already begun to respond to the potential water issue, and when properly informed will rise to the challenge of water conservation. ‘The issues are complex, deserving of additional time to examine innovative long term solutions and I’d like to see Mission back at the table. In the meantime, Braun supports the “conservation first” approach, working in tandem with a careful “conservative second look”. We need sufficient time for Abbotsford to build up our economic reserves before we rush into a decision that will impact us for the next seventy-five to one hundred years, which is the estimated life of the water treatment plant.’

More details on Braun’s thoughts on this and other issues impacting the citizens of Abbotsford are available on his website at http://henrybraun.ca

During my campaign travels, numerous people have shared their confusion with me that, while they agree with some portions of the referendum question, they disagree with other portions. The following guide may be helpful in working through that process.

Step 1: Carefully Read the Referendum (note that each underlined portion is in fact a separate question/issue, of which there are 10):

Are you in favour of the City of Abbotsford (1) developing a new water supply source at Stave Lake (2)(consisting of a water intake in Stave Lake, a pump station, a water treatment plant and a water transmission line from Stave Lake to the City of Abbotsford) (3) to ensure that the current and long term water needs of the City of Abbotsford are met by: the City (4) entering into a partnering agreement with a private sector partner that (5) will design, build, partially finance and operate a water supply and distribution system from Stave Lake (6) for up to thirty (30) years, (7) incurring a maximum capital cost and liability to the City of TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY-ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($291,000,000) of which (8) up to $61,000,000 will be paid for through a federal contribution; and Abbotsford City Council adopting (9) Bylaw No. 2105-2011, “Stave Lake Water System Loan Authorization Bylaw, 2011” to (10) authorize the borrowing by the City of the remaining TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS ($230,000,000), for up to thirty (30) years, for the capital cost of constructing the water supply and distribution system from Stave Lake?

Step 2: Answer the Following Questions:

1. Do you understand the Referendum question so that its meaning is clear to you?
2. Have you taken the time to become reasonably informed about the issues involved in this decision?
3. Do you approve of proceeding with this project without the approval or involvement of Mission?
4. Understanding the benefits/detriments of “the City entering into a partnering agreement with a private sector partner that will design, build, partially finance and operate water supply and distribution system”, do you wish to proceed with the project in this manner?
5. Have you read, understood and agree with Bylaw No. 2105-2011?
6. Do you approve of the City borrowing $230 million for the project?

Step 3. If your answer to all of the above questions is “Yes”, then, on principle, you vote “Yes” in the upcoming Referendum.

Step 4: If your answer to any of the above questions is “No”, then, on principle, you vote “No” in the upcoming Referendum.

Everyone knows that young adults (those under 30) are often unable to afford the price, or the rent, for reasonable housing. There is, however, a local Abbotsford effort that seems to have proven that young people can live responsibly together in community and, in the process, have affordable housing.

A few days ago, I received an invitation to get together for coffee. It was from a young man I had never met (let’s call him David), age 26. We enjoyed a cup of coffee at Formaggio’s (a great local spot) and had what I thought was a very enlightening discussion on a number of topics. However, our primary focus was the Atangard Community Project and the 27 young people who make this their home. I had heard about the Atangard Community Project a number of years ago, but never actually met anyone associated with that community. “The Project”, as it is called, is a simple idea: a group of young people who are seeking to live together in an affordable community. It is located in what once was the old Atangard Hotel in historic downtown Abbotsford.

Although “The Project” dates back 4 or 5 years, since 2009 the Atangard has provided affordable housing in a community setting for university students and working people between the ages of 19 and early 30s. Each apartment in the Atangard is 150 – 300 sq. ft., not including individual bathrooms. “The Project” is fully occupied with a waiting list, which indicates that there is a need that is being met. The residents have developed a system where they take turns preparing dinner once or twice per month. When asked, David (not his real name) said he hoped that this demographic in our community could more readily access Council members, and to find a venue in which to dialogue on important local matters. The goal would be to come together and explore solutions to some of the needs encountered by young adults of our community. David had taken the initiative. I received an open invitation to join this community for dinner, which I will do sometime during the next week or two.

Afterwards, I did some of my own research and discovered that Sophia Suderman is one of the directors that spearheaded this initiative in response to what she saw as a great need for reasonably priced, community-based living for this often overlooked demographic. Sophie is quoted as saying, “Our society is so driven to achieve, and relationships fall to the side… A situation like this meets both the relational needs as well as the need for affordability.”

Abbotsford has a rich heritage of meeting local needs, as well as those in different locations around the world. Our local community has often been a model for innovative solutions, such as “The Project”. By taking the initiative, listening to each other and working hard together, even seemingly insurmountable difficulties can be addressed.

Today, I was invited to lunch by a group of young voters. By that I mean quite a bit younger than me; half of them being in their early to mid-30s. Having been invited to the luncheon, I was keen to know their thoughts on the upcoming election, so I kept my opening to a minimum and spent as much time possible answering questions.

I was struck by two things; this generation deeply cares about our community, its presence, its future and how we are going to address the issues we face. Secondly, I was impressed with the caliber and quality of these up and coming leaders who have made Abbotsford their home.

What I thought would be a 1 hour luncheon turned into more than two hours of meaningful interaction. And we could easily have gone on for much longer. The time I was able to spend with these young citizens was priceless. The topics discussed ranged from property taxation, the Stave Lake Water Project, crime and safety, trust and integrity both in business and government, community values, business ethics, the global economy, voter apathy, the City’s financial situation, perceived government waste and a growing bureaucracy to name just a few in no particular order. I learned much more from them than they likely learned from me.

I came away from the meeting feeling very encouraged. There are young men and women in their 20’s and 30’s who are engaged in this election and who care deeply about our City. They are all going to vote on November 19. I was very proud (in the right sense of that word), that these up and coming leaders were taught in our local schools and now reside in our City. At times, I hear that young people don’t have time to get involved in local elections, remaining apathetic or totally critical in an unconstructive way. We talked about how easy it is to criticize without being willing to help find a solution. But the ones I met over an extended lunch are fully engaged, fully committed to make our community better and, in fact, are making a difference in the marketplaces where they serve.

The number of calls asking me for my position on the referendum question continues to mount. My reply continues to be that I will be making my position on my website www.henrybraun.ca by the end of this week.

One of the many joys of being a grandfather is to take time to be with grandchildren. While I dearly love my children, there is something extra special when it comes to grandchildren…and mere words don’t fully express what I feel about them

Friday night was the first time that I had taken my youngest two grandsons, ages 4 and 6 to a Heat Hockey game. When I arrived to pick them up, I could see the excitement on their faces. I immediately knew that this was going to be one of those locations that the three of us will not soon forget. Their first words were, “Grandpa, Grandpa, look at the sign we made”. “Go Heat Go” had been written with a felt pen on a piece of cardboard cut from a box.

As we walked into the AESC complex, there was Ryan Walter, President of the Abbotsford Heat, mingling with the crowd, greeting everyone and posing for photographs with anyone who asked. Of course, we asked that a picture be taken with Ryan, to which he graciously agreed. Ryan even took off his Stanley Cup ring and let my youngest grandson hold it for the picture. I’m not sure that he fully understood that there are very few people who have ever held a Stanley Cup ring in their hands, but that understanding will come soon enough. For now, the pictures will go into their albums to be cherished along with other memorable events they will enjoy. Even before the game began, the younger of my two grandsons became an instant hit with the lady sitting directly behind us and developed a friendship that I’m sure will be continued the next time we go.

The third period of the game was exciting and it was great to see the Abbotsford Heat win 2 – 1 in a shoot out, ending the Milwaukee Admirals new season undefeated streak.

I admit that I had one disappointment. Despite a great evening of entertainment and good hockey, there were only 2,200 fans out on a Friday night. Abbotsford has a great hockey team and the new president, Ryan Walter, brings an added dimension of enthusiasm, energy and cooperation to the Hockey team. I fully understand the controversy surrounding the AESC and the $1.3 operating deficit of the team. But we made a commitment to this team, rightly or wrongly. We now owe it to Ryan and the team to show our community support, the kind of enthusiastic backing that this City is known for. The Abbotsford Heat are trying everything they can to be part of our community. They are not asking for our charity, just our support of great local hockey. Not only is it great hockey, but many of the players you will be able to see it seems will end up in the NHL, some may even be playing for the Canucks.

The Abbotsford Heat are now an important part of our community. They have committed to being contributors to our City, helping in the schools, minor hockey, and many other ways. Do yourself a favor. The next time the Abbotsford Heat are in town, take in the game. Take your children or grandchildren, nieces or nephews. Take your whole family. It’s affordable, local and enjoyable.