Straight from city council A personal view, by Councillor Steve Morris

Last week I explained how more than 70 per cent of homeowners pay a greater percentage of their home's value in rates than those who own the most valuable 20 per cent of property in our city. By adopting a ‘flat rate' like Hamilton City Council does, 70 per cent of you would have a rates decrease, and 10 per cent would pay the same – and 20 per cent would pay more.

I think it's fear of increasing rates for the top 20 per cent of ratepayers that's led council to keep a regressive rating system rather than a fairer flat percentage for everybody. I believe this fear is unfounded. Last year property values increased by 27 per cent in Tauranga. Imagine a beautiful property in Matua worth $3.4m. In 2015 it would have been worth $2.7m. That's a tax-free increase of $700,000 in one year. It would take the average wage earner more than 20 years to earn the same. I'm sure people in multi-million-dollar properties would be horrified to learn that lower value homeowners are offsetting their rates.

Opponents of a flat rate suggest a low-income, multi-million-dollar homeowner could be rated out of their property by a change. Is that true? A flat rate doesn't seem to have affected such property owners in Hamilton. In any case, Tauranga City Council has a rates postponement policy where if rates impose an unacceptable financial hardship on a homeowner they can apply to council – and if granted won't have to pay any rates. That's right, none! The condition being council collects six years of rates upon sale of the property. We can still do more than decrease rates for 70 per cent of our residential ratepayers. I'll tell you how next week.