LOCAL government in Oxfordshire is "broken".

That has been the view of council leaders since March, but they still cannot agree on how to fix it.

Two competing visions have been set out and there are even suggestions the county could get its own mayor.

Changing the system could theoretically save the taxpayer money and simplify governance.

But politicians agree on two things: budget cuts mean the current system is too expensive and it is also confusing.

At the moment in Oxfordshire there are two levels of councils, which run different services.

For example, we have five district councils to collect our bins and a county council running the centres where rubbish is taken.

Meanwhile, those same five councils control where buildings can go but the county council plans where roads are built.

As well as being complicated, two studies published in August also confirmed it is inefficient.

According to consultants Grant Thornton and PricewaterhouseCoopers, up to £22.6m a year could be saved if we replaced all our authorities with just one "unitary" council.

This was recently done in other parts of the country in 2009, such as Cornwall, Wiltshire, Northumberland and Shropshire.

Here, any single 'unitary' authority would be the third largest of its kind in England, acting as a single point of contact for all services such as planning, housing, transport, waste disposal and social care.

It would also cut the most costs, saving taxpayers £113m by 2020.

The total number of elected councillors needed could plummet from 282 to as few as 75, with "area boards" set up for each district and the city to make local decisions.

Ian Hudspeth, the county council leader, has said it would be a "dereliction of duty" to walk away from the idea.

He said: "When faced with stark financial choices, we need to look at anything that enables us to save money and protect frontline services.

"I simply can’t turn my back on £100m."

So why haven't we done it? The Government says our politicians need to agree. But the district council leaders argue it is not that simple.

"A monolithic, unitary council would flounder", they say.

"It would be unable to manage the needs of the county’s different communities and would impose blanket solutions to problems that would make no one happy."

This is because the concerns of people in, say, Henley, are different to those living in Banbury, the district councils point out.

They have also warned that a single unitary council might be tempted to sell-off prized assets like Oxford's social housing, or find it difficult to justify carry on providing free parking in West Oxfordshire's when other areas have to pay.

Instead, they want three unitary authorities in the county that would set their own rates of council tax and work together on a combined authority, saving £75.5m over five years.

These three councils would be for Northern Oxfordshire, Oxford City and Southern Oxfordshire, with powers over most services.

The combined authority would cover all of them and run services with bigger budgets, like social care and transport projects.

James Mills, West Oxfordshire District Council leader, said: "We believe local government should be for local people and a three-unitary authority model is the one that best serves all the needs of residents, businesses and solves the challenges that lie ahead.

"The three unitary model delivers significant savings, while retaining local accountability without requiring the creation of new costly, complex and confusing sub-structures.

"It avoids the problem of council tax harmonisation and allows local councils to set local rates of council tax for their areas.

"It provides a simple way for the three councils to work together to ensure Oxfordshire is an engine for economic growth."

Both ideas for reforms were put forward after ministers suggested the county would need to simply its government to win a major devolution deal.

This would hand power over huge budgets for health, transport, housing and skills to local politicians, meaning we could gain an extra £30m a year for spending on roads, public transport and new homes.

But the failure of council leaders to reach a consensus on what path to take could now threaten the prospect of a deal.

There have also recently been calls for a directly-elected "jetsetting mayor", who could fly around the world like former London Mayor Boris Johnson to promote Oxfordshire abroad.

Mayors were championed by former Chancellor George Osborne, who saw them as figureheads who could be held directly accountable to voters.

The Government has said it will not force councils to accept mayors, but it has made clear only the most significant powers will be handed over in devolution deals if they do.

PANEL 3: WHY DO SAVINGS MATTER?

Since 2010, budget cuts of more than £300m handed down by the Government have led to a series of controversial decisions in Oxfordshire.

The most recent example is the imminent closure of some children's centres.

This has happened because Oxfordshire County Council says it can no longer afford to keep funding all of them, with the authority instead rolling back support to its "statutory duties" – those it is legally required to provide.

The authority agreed to cut £6m from its early intervention budget in February, which will take effect next year.

It also agreed cuts of £1.5m to homelessness support, staggered over the next three years, which has led to fears there will be a rise in rough sleeping in Oxford.

In the same year, controversial cuts to bus subsidies to save about £3m were passed and took effect in July this year. This has led to the closure of about 50 rural bus services across Oxfordshire that campaigners said were "vital" to the elderly and disabled".

Council leaders have said unitary councils could help save millions and ease future budget cuts.