November 2000 was a dream for ardent political observers. Apart from the federal election where enough mud was thrown by all parties to build a ski hill and a U.S. presidential election that seemed to involve more lawyers than voters, locally we also voted in the first Mayor and Council for the "new" City of Ottawa.

Even though 11 municipalities and the Region will be collapsed into one new city on January 1st, 2001, you'd hardly know it by the lacklustre campaign that was offered up by the major mayoral candidates over the past six months. Just seven days after the November 13th vote, I asked several colleagues to recount some of the main municipal issues that were discussed. Not one of them could recall hydro debt, managing growth or amalgamation tax savings.

It seems as though the only thing that resonated with my friends were the names of two principal mayoral candidates, Bob Chiarelli and Claudette Cain, which they could easily rattle off. Yet in spite of a low-key campaign, some 253,866 of us - from a list of 539,853 potential electors - cast a municipal ballot for a record breaking municipal turnout of 47%. Up dramatically from traditional municipal turnout that historically hovers between 30% and 35%.

Bob Chiarelli won a decisive victory with 56.3% of the votes cast over Claudette Cain who earned about 40.6% support. Joining Mr. Chiarelli will be 21 councilors - all but one of them - with significant political experience. And when they sit down at City Hall (the old RMOC HQ) on January 3rd for their first Council meeting, the real work begins. While a variety of issues (known and unknown) will dominate Council's agenda, Council should heed the advice provided below or Ottawa taxpayers could be in for a rocky and counterproductive three years.

The first challenge for Council is to confront the Y2K Transition Bug. Claude Bennett (and his transition team) were, and still are, the target of choice and expediency for Mr. Chiarelli and many of his new Council colleagues. While Council will no doubt re-visit some key Transition Board decisions, a whole scale review of the Board's decisions would be time-consuming, costly and moreover, could poison future relations with the Province in areas of ambulance service reform, infrastructure funding and social services questions.

Second, Council must understand its Big Picture mandate. Admittedly, some strong suburban councilors were elected along with the four rural mayors. But the amalgamation debate is over, period, full-stop! Local residents chose these councilors not for their spirited defence of the rural alliance model or the tri-city option, but for their experience and judgment that they bring to issues.

On the bright side, voters selected an appropriate mix of councilors with differing political persuasions that drive their respective approaches to local government. Thankfully - on balance - Council will lean to the right on most votes but is still left (pardon the pun) with a strong social conscience contingent which will make for substantive quality of life discussions in the Council chamber.

Third, Council must not become Comfortable in its approach to issues. The ambulance debate during the last regional council was a prime example of this comfort level. Private sector participation in the delivery of critical ambulance services was almost summarily dismissed. The thought of non-public delivery of an essential service challenged the collective comfort level of regional council. This is not to say that we should open up all public services holus-bolus to privatization: simply replacing a public sector monopoly with a private sector one does not serve the public interest. However, Council should approach public services with an open mind to alternate service delivery, public-private partnerships or employee takeover corporations.

Finally, Council must seek to create an engaging Vision for Ottawa. Local MPP Brian Coburn is bang-on with this request. But it is easier said than done. Neither of the major mayoral candidates laid out a vision of what Ottawa would be in 5, 10 or 25 years. Indeed it seems as though most members of Council, given their campaign literature, take growth as a given. We must not measure ourselves by what Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver have: me too, me too does not make for sound urban planning. Instead, defining where Ottawa should be in the short- (3 years), medium- (5 to 10 years) and long-term (15 to 20 years) with regard to industry structure, population growth, infrastructure (roads, public transit, community facilities), cultural amenities and social services. Council must do this in their Official Plan exercise with the broadest possible public input.

By avoiding the Y2K transition bug, not being constrained by comfortable thinking, staying focused on big picture priorities and defining a vision for the new Ottawa, Council can make amalgamation work -- and cut our taxes to boot. If not, expect a fair amount of Council turnover in 2003.