It's amazing how a trip to the golf course can focus the Premier's mind. During his annual fundraiser on the links with the party faithful, Premier Harris sent municipal hearts a flutter when he announced that a solution to the age-old question of local government restructuring was a priority for his government. With a solid 7-iron from 140 yards out, Ottawa-Carleton's favourite navel gazing exercise is back in play on the 18th green. Rookie Municipal Affairs Minister Steve Gilchrist now has to "putt for dough" after the Premier's approach shot fell oh so close to the pin.

A long-overdue solution to the hybrid of convoluted responsibilities, personal fiefdoms, endless duplication in services and the constant petty bickering between various cities and regional government will be most welcome. However, taxpayers can be forgiven for not interrupting their golf games to pay much attention even though the Province has teed off with the requisite bellow of fore!

After 25 years, taxpayers have grown weary of seeing great tee shots on this issue continue to veer off into the pond. They know that we are overgoverned at the local level. They know that this issue has been studied to death. And most importantly, they know that our current crop of elected officials is utterly incapable of fishing the ball out of the water and moving it closer to the hole.

So it's up to the province to implement a workable solution in time for the 2000 municipal elections. Trivial concerns of disappearing neighbourhoods and apportioning Ottawa's debt need not distract the province as these are merely red herring arguments. So three big questions remain unanswered. What form will the new governance model take? Will voters be consulted? And realistically, can it be done?

A quick check of the leader board shows two players way out in front. At one under par, the three-city, no regional government model favoured by local MPP and Community Services Minister John Baird, Brian Coburn, parliamentary assistant to Minister Gilchrist, and a host of suburban mayors, is the early favourite. But just one stroke behind we find the unicity (one tier, one city in the urban areas) model favoured by Mayor Watson, Regional Chair Chiarelli, MPP Gary Guzzo and various business lobby groups.

While both models have their merits, the unicity approach seems to be the most feasible, most accountable and the one that will yield savings to taxpayers in short order. Regional services already represent 80 to 85 per cent of your current property tax bill. From policing to buses to ambulances to garbage collection to land use planning to social services, most key services are now delivered by the region. Besides running some community centres, the local library and some zoning by-law issues, the cities don't count for a lot anymore.

Transition costs, technology integration costs and human resources outplacement obligations would be minimized if the cities were folded into the Region. On the other hand, the same can not be said for the three-city, dump the region approach. Region wide services, no run by the Region, would be turned over to regional service boards. But to whom do taxpayers voice their concerns in such a model? How would budgets be set and what opportunities would there be for public input?

Would all these boards be appointed thereby the roles of city councillors, a bit, err, redundant?

Now we turn to the challenge of consultation. Some of the suburban mayors want to see a referendum held on this issue. In principle, I like putting important questions to the people. But if a referendum is not binding and has no clear rules for both sides, it simply isn't worth the effort. In addition, I find it more than a touch ironic that is these same suburban Mayors that scuttled and undermined the work of the Citizen's Panel on Local Governance (which ultimately resigned en masse in disgust at this interference) that now profess their desire to let the people speak.

Immediate appointment of a Commissioner - one who knows the issues and the players - empowered with a deadline by which to make recommendations to Cabinet for action would be the best club Minister Gilchrist could draw from his bag. But will it work you may ask? Yes it can, if Mr. Gilchrist keeps his eye on the big ball and brings with him the same determination he exhibited in the painful Toronto megacity debate. Indeed, it could be a hole in one for Ottawa-Carleton's taxpayers and we could all celebrate victory at the 19th hole.