Read more from Federated Farmers here.
So no fundamental reform on offer at this stage. Nevertheless, despite the main conclusion the Commission has identified areas of pressure, where councils are clearly struggling.
Their proposals might eventually ease the pain of ratepayers - but it's a long shot.
Of real interest to farmers is the cost on ratepayers of the tourism boom, and this got a lot of attention in the draft report.
The Commission has proposed legislation to allow councils to set accommodation levies.
This could offer an income stream for tourism towns and cities under pressure, but whether councils in rural and lower growth areas could benefit from this is an open question.
Freedom campers would remain oblivious, and central government would still be raking in the big GST returns, while giving little back.
The absence of any money for councils in the first allocation of revenue from the International Visitor Levy might be a disturbing insight, however, into government's priorities. None of that money has gone to local government.
The Commission also calls for a "reset" of the central-local government relationship, with a revenue share for the plethora of new regulations and standards emanating from Parliament that councils are expected to administer.
In recent years - certainly since the enactment of the RMA - there has been a quite considerable transferral of costs from taxpayer ratepayer. This is a very old chestnut.
For councils under major pressure to develop infrastructure for growth, the Commission felt that central government could contribute funds based on new building work in place.
This would in theory take some of the costs of growth for the future off today's ratepayers.
Included too, are proposals that would assist councils with climate change adaptation, for the roading network by way of a formula similar in kind to that used to allocate money from the National Land Transport Fund to councils.
Government money for flood protection schemes would be a factor too; it's not well known that farmers pay for a lot of these schemes that serve national and regional interests and which government largely walked away from in 1989.
Perhaps most valuable of the draft report's propositions is that councils should allocate rates according to the level of benefit ratepayers, or groups of ratepayers, receive from council amenities and services.
This isn't by any means a new idea. The benefit principle is already among the considerations for allocating rates in the Local Government Act.
Any farmer knows councils never fully apply it, and the notion of paying less cash for urban amenities than urban ratepayers is the stuff of dreams.
Tacked on, however, is the very odd suggestion that this should all be done with targeted rates, with the Commission also proposing the removal of differentials and the uniform annual general charge.
As veteran submitters on rating policy, Federated Farmers knows that these are key methods for some councils to smooth the rating allocation between rural and urban, and their removal would be disastrous for farm rates in a lot of places.
It would seem the Commission has some positive suggestions for growth and the right idea on allocating rates according to benefit, but a dodgy recipe for doing that.
All rather disappointing for a process that, at first, seemed to carry some promise for the farming community.
Federated Farmers will stick to the message that property value rates are hopelessly inequitable and at their limit for our people.
We'll see what comes in the Commission's final report, and whether government decides to do anything with it, or leave it in the too hard basket.