Complete Doc 19 Oct 05 Annotated

LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL
Incorporating Updated Material from April 2010
AMENDED
PROPOSAL
FOR A
CITY BOUNDARY
EXTENSION
Prepared in accordance with the

Local Government Act, 1991
and Regulations made thereunder
October 2005
Incorporating Updated Material from April 2010
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1991
RESOLUTION
Resolved at a meeting of the Limerick City Council held on the day of 2005.
"That we, the Mayor and Members of Limerick City Council, having proposed that the boundary of Limerick
City be altered and having considered the responses of Limerick and Clare County Councils, and having
considered the views of the public received during the period of public display of the said proposal, hereby
resolve to amend the proposal that the boundary of the City of Limerick be altered in accordance with the
provisions of Part V of The Local Government Act, 1991 and we hereby propose pursuant to the provisions of
Section 29 of The Local Government Act, 1991 that the boundary of the City of Limerick be altered in accordance
with the said Amended Proposal by extending the Boundary of the City of Limerick so as to include in the said
City the portions of the Counties of Limerick and Clare as set out in the Schedule hereto and as more particularly
specified and shown on the Map marked Map 1 referred to in, and forming part of, the said Amended Proposal
and we direct that our Corporate Seal be affixed to the said Amended Proposal and to the said Map and we
hereby resolve to apply in accordance with Section 29 of the Local Government Act 1991 to the Minister for
Environment Heritage and Local Government for the making of an order, under Section 31(1) of the Local
Government Act 1991, altering the Boundary of the City of Limerick in accordance with the terms of the
Amended Proposal and we hereby resolve to withdraw any and all previous applications and petitions to
extend the said boundary of the City of Limerick made under this or previous legislation".
SCHEDULE
The townlands which it is proposed to add to the area of the City are set out below. It is proposed to include
these townlands in their entirety with the exception of Ballykeelaun in Co. Clare.
LIMERICK COUNTY CLARE COUNTY

Limerick N. Rural ED Limerick S. Rural ED Ballycummin ED Ballyglass ED
Clonmacken Rathurd (Limerick S) Ballykeefe Garraun (Ballyglass)
Caherdavin Rosbrien Gouldavoher Quinnspool South
Knock Ballysheedy East Dooradoyle Parteen
Shanabooley Rathbane South Sluggary St. Thomas' Island
Ballygrennan Reboge Meadows Ballycummin Fairyhill
Clonconane Reboge Bunlicky Kilquane
Clondrinagh Singland Skehacreggaun Knockballynameath
Coonagh East Banemore Baunacloka Gortatogher
Coonagh West Bohereen Caheranardrish Ballykeelaun (part)
Ballysimon ED Crossagalla Castlemungret Athlunkard
Ballysimon Crabbes Lane Conigar Shannakyle
Newtown Monaclinoe Dromdarrig Cloonoughter
Kilbane Inchmore Loughlanleagh Quinnspool North
Newcastle Ballyvarra ED Loughmore Common Rosmadda East
Dromroe Castletroy Lurraga Rosmadda West
Sreelane Rivers Monteen Cappavilla ED
Garryglass Roxborough ED Rathmale Clooncarhy
Knockananty Ballysheedy West Gilloge
Ballysimon Staunton Routagh Garraun
Towlerton Rathurd (Rox) Srawickeen
Bohereen (Rox) Killeely ED
Gortgarraun
Ballycannon ED
Knockalisheen
Present when the Corporate

Seal of the Mayor and Members
of Limerick City Council was
affixed hereto in the presence of
DIRECTOR OF SERVICES MAYOR OF LIMERICK
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CITY MANAGER

Items Highlighted in Yellow contain Updated Material
(April 2010)
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a
PREAMBLE
P.1 Review of Recent Events 1
P.2 Limerick City : History and Government 2
P.3 The 1974 Petition 2
P.4 Relevant Documents and Events 3
P.5 Layout of Proposal 3
SECTION A REASONS FOR PROPOSAL
A.1 Effective and Convenient Local Government 4

A.2 Regional Role 6
A.3 Promotion of City 11
A.4 Population Growth 13
A.5 Lack of Development Land 15
A.6 Planning and Development 17
A.7 Social Imbalance 23
A.8 Enfranchisement 27
A.9 Functions and Services 28
A.9.1 Water Supply 28
A.9.2 Foul Drainage 29
A.9.3 Waste Management 29
A.9.4 Pollution Control 30
A.9.5 Fire Service 30
A.9.6 Roads and Traffic 31
A.9.7 Housing 32
A.9.8 Open Space, Parks and Playing Fields 33
A.9.9 Other Recreation 33
A.9.10 Museums and Libraries 33
A.10 Financial Matters 34
SECTION B PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT AREA
B.1 Existing Boundaries 35

B.2 Proposed Boundary and Subject Area 35
i
(April 2010)
SECTION C SOCIO-ECONOMIC MATTERS
C.1 Introduction 36
C.2 Population 36
C.3 The Subject Area 39
C.4 Rateable Valuation 41
C.5 Number of Commercial Premises 41
C.6 Number of Households 41
C.7 Annual Income 42
SECTION D ESTIMATED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR PROPOSER
D.1 Methodology 43
D.2 Income and Expenditure by Programme Group 45
D.3 Changes in Income from Commercial Rates 53
SECTION E ADJUSTMENTS OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS PROPOSED

BETWEEN PROPOSER AND RESPONDENTS
E.1 Financial Matters 54

E.1.1 Local Government Fund Allocation 54
E.1.2 Financial Adjustments 54
E.1.3 Impact On Finances Post Boundary Extension –
Effect On Limerick County 55
E.1.4 Impact On Finances Post Boundary Extension –
Effect On Clare County 66
E.1.5 Commentary On Section 6,
Financial Implications, Of The
Limerick County Council Response 67
E.1.6 Commentary On Section 3,
Financial Implications, Of The
Clare County Council Response 70
E.1.7 Future Financial Impacts
E.2 Administrative Matters 71
E.2.1 Local Government Electoral Ratios 71
E.2.2 Local Enactments 72
E.2.3 Strategic Policies Committees 73
E.3 Organisational Matters 73
E.3.1 Staffing 73
E.3.2 Restructuring of Services 74
SECTION F TRANSITIONAL MEASURES
F.1 Financial Measures 75

F.2 Administrative Measures 75
F.3 Organisational Measures 76
SECTION G OTHER INFORMATION AND MATERIAL
G.1 Precedents 77
ii
(April 2010)
TABLES AT REAR
TABLE 1: POPULATION CHANGE 1951 to 2002
TABLE 2: DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN SELECTED AREAS 1981 - 2002
TABLE 3: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE
TABLE 4: CHANGE IN NATURAL INCREASE, LIMERICK CITY 1981,

1986,2002
TABLE 5: PERSONS AGED 15 YEARS AND OVER BY PRINCIPAL

ECONOMIC STATUS LIMERICK CITY
TABLE 6: SOCIO-ECONOMIC COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN

LIMERICK CITY AND EXTENDED AREA 1991,2002
TABLE 7: HOUSING TENURE IN LIMERICK CITY, 1981,1991,AND 2002
TABLE 8: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSING TENURE 1991 AND

2002
TABLE 9: PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA TOWNLANDS
TABLE 10: PROJECTED POPULATION OF LIMERICK CITY 2002 TO 2022
TABLE 11: AREA OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION
TABLE 12: TOTAL VALUATIONS IN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY

EXTENSION AREA
TABLE 13: OTHER VALUATIONS, BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA
TABLE 14: PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS IN PROPOSED

EXTENDED CITY
TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO INCOME
TABLE 16: PROJECTED IMPACT OF PROPOSED EXTENSION ON LIMERICK

CITY COUNCIL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
TABLE 17: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 1
iii
(April 2010)
TABLE 25: TREND IN GENERAL ANNUAL RATE ON VALUATION
TABLE 26: RATES INCOME 2004 IN THE BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA
TABLE 27: NET FINANCIAL IMPACT TO LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL OF

PROPOSED EXTENSION
TABLE 28: IMPACT OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION ON

LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL AND CLARE COUNTY
COUNCIL
TABLE 29: PERCENTAGE ANNUAL LEVEL OF CONVERGENCE IN

VALUATION
iv
APPENDICES AT REAR
1. RESOLUTION OF LIMERICK CORPORATION DATED

14 OCTOBER 1996
2. LIMERICK CITY : HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT
3. THE 1950 BOUNDARY EXTENSION
4. THE 1974 BOUNDARY PETITION
5. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EVENTS
6. DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
7. PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT AREA
8. STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 410 OF 1985
9. SURVEY OF OPINIONS OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This summary presents the background to the proposal by Limerick City Council to
extend the boundary of Limerick City. The summary outlines the essential
arguments, which favor the extension.
EVENTS TO DATE
The present boundary of Limerick City, encompassing 2,086 hectares, was set in
1950. A petition to extend that boundary was made to the Minister for Local
Government in 1974 and was not determined.
The current proposal, to incorporate 4,830 hectares of County Limerick and 1,621 of
County Clare so as to give a total City area of 8,537 hectares, was first made 1996.
An amended proposal was submitted to the Minister for the Environment in 1999.
No decision was made on this amended proposal by the Minister but in a reply in
2002 the Minister advised that due to the passage of time, the information on which
the proposal was based had become obsolete and advised that a fresh proposal be
made based on up-to-date information and in accordance with the 2001 Act.
This document comprises an amended proposal, updated to include financial and

other information relevant to 2004 together with the responses received from
Limerick and Clare counties. The relevant sections of the 2001 Act have not yet
been commenced (October 2005) and so the City Council has decided to prepare this
revised proposal in accordance with the 1991 Act. The layout of the document is in
accordance with the Local Government (Boundary Alteration) Regulations, 1996.
a
PRECEDENTS
Since the 1991 Act was commenced the following boundary extensions inter alia
have been granted:
Area Pre Area Post % Increase In Population

Extention Extention Area 2002
(in Ha) (in Ha)
Killarney 1169 1,534 31.22% 12,087
Castlebar 393 1,099 179.64% 10,287
Westport 813 821 0.98% 5,314
Ballina 433 1,451 235.10% 9,478
The above extensions were granted in 2000, 2001 and later to extend urban
administrative areas to encompass the suburbs of growing towns. These clearly
demonstrate;
• That the extending of administrative boundaries is required in urban areas in

order to achieve effective and convenient Local Government.
• That notwithstanding the passage of the Local Government Act of 2001, the
extensions were granted under the Act of 1991.
• That the Town of Killarney with a population of 12,087 persons encompasses

an area 73% the size of the current Limerick City.
• That the town of Ballina with a population of only 9,478 persons encompasses
an area 69% the size of the current Limerick City
b
THE REASONS FOR THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Alterations to local authority boundaries are made pursuant to the Local

Government Act, 1991 which stipulates that the sole considerations upon which an
alteration can be based are "effective and convenient local government", terms that
are not defined in the Act and which this application attempts to define.
The case of Limerick City Council is grounded squarely on the concept of effective
and convenient local government, defined by the City Council as embracing aspects
of representation, quality, quantity and cost of service provision to the public. The
concept also incorporates the principle of equity of provision to all consumers
regardless of their location.
In addressing the concept of effective and convenient local government, the City
Council bases its case on four key beliefs;
1. STRONG CITIES MAKE STRONG REGIONS
• The future prospects for the rural areas, villages and towns of the Region are
now inextricably linked to the prospects for the regional city: Limerick. If the
City of Limerick and its Region is not to be bypassed by knowledge driven
enterprise, Limerick City must be in a position to demonstrate to prospective
investors that the city and its suburbs is a well managed coherent entity with
visionary long-term plans to provide the urban scale and sophisticated
services considered essential by knowledge-driven enterprise.
• Limerick City is the urban centre of the Mid-West Region. The partitioning of
that centre is inimical to the effective management and promotion of the
wellbeing of the city and hence the region. The City Council believes that a
strong city will lead to a stronger, better performing region to drive the
objectives of the National Spatial Strategy and National Development Plan. A
prospective investor examining the region would not be impressed to
discover that the de facto city of Limerick with almost 100,000 inhabitants is
administered by three different local authorities, two of whom have no
mandate to manage a city. As a result of this and the tensions that exist no
coherent or visionary plan exists for the operation or future development of
an urban area of 100,000 inhabitants.
• Social imbalance resulting from rural depopulation is universally

recognized. Less obvious is the imbalance caused by loss of
population to the periphery, such as has been experienced in Limerick
and manifested by social deprivation in the City. These problems can
be best addressed in a balanced way by a single local authority.
2. CITY GOVERNANCE SHOULD BE UNITARY AND REPRESENTATIVE
• In terms of land use planning and development the entire Limerick

city area performs as a single, complex entity. To ensure that needs
and changes in the urban system are managed and directed in the most
effective and convenient manner it is essential to have a unitary
approach.
c
• Of the forty thousand people living in the suburbs of Limerick a
significant proportion believe themselves to be living in the City but
have no representation in the governance of the city, unlike the town
of Navan where a comparable thirty thousand suburbanites can elect
councillors to the Navan Town Council.
• The economic development and growth of Limerick requires a sense

of vision for the city, the realization of which requires an integrated set
of direct and indirect strategies that can only be effectively achieved by
unitary governance. The prospects and future wellbeing of Limerick
and its region can be significantly improved by extending the city
boundary to embrace the full urban area and thereby permitting a
single local authority to put in place a coherent visionary plan for the
future of the City.
• In terms of enfranchisement, only the City Council can have the city as
a whole as its sole policy focus, thus ensuring equity for, and
accountability to, the entire urban electorate of the enlarged City.
• A single authority for the whole city will reduce delay and allow
consistency in decision-making by reducing the need for consultation
(often prolonged), the need for consensus (not always achieved) as
well as the need for co-ordination (not always effective) associated
with a divided jurisdiction.
• The provision of local services by three autonomous local authorities

within a single, relatively discrete urban area militates against equity in
distribution.
3. CITIES SHOULD ENJOY JOINED-UP SERVICE PROVISION
• Duplication of services by the City and County Councils has led to a

lowering of quality and efficiency in the delivery of these services.
• The population has declined steadily in the City and has grown in the
environs. Service provision is diffuse leading to an uneven level of
provision in the suburbs versus the City.
• There is insufficient land available within the City to accommodate the

proper functioning and growth of the City.
• The provision of local services by three autonomous local authorities

within a single, relatively discrete urban area militates against effective
and efficient delivery of services, uniformity in quality, economies of
scale and equity in distribution to the citizens.
d
4. CITY RESOURCES SHOULD BE RE-INVESTED IN THE CITY
• Services in the extended area, as at present administered by the

County Councils, are under-resourced due to the higher priority
accorded to the larger rural hinterland. Extension of the Limerick City
boundary will lead to an increase in revenue for the City Council and a
decrease in revenue for the County Councils. These revenue
adjustments will be balanced by commensurate changes in
expenditure on the services each Local Authority is expected to
provide. From a national perspective, or on the basis of rational
planning, the revenue and expenditure adjustments issues provide no
valid arguments to inhibit changing the urban boundary to reflect
reality.
• The extended boundary will ensure that income raised in the extended
area will be applied to services in the enlarged City of Limerick.
• The extended boundary will assist in securing the long-term financial

base for the City.
THE RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM LIMERICK & CLARE COUNCILS
As required by law, the proposal was sent to Limerick and Clare County Councils
(the respondents) and responses were received from both. Both respondents
rejected the proposal without discussion either with the City Council or, apparently,
with each other.
The City Council believes that strong cities make strong regions and has asserted
that the planning and economic development of Limerick for the benefit of the
region ought to be under the control of a single authority. Limerick County
disagrees and avows that the task of planning and economic development should
instead be performed by joint discussion and cooperative action. This assertion is
however contradicted by Clare County, which maintains that any expansion of the
City ought to be in Limerick County, and further states that to involve three
counties in the planning of the City and suburbs would be unnecessarily
complicated.
Although both respondents prepare plans for the suburbs of Limerick, neither
respondent demonstrates an awareness of the growth capacity of Limerick City and
suburbs and neither respondent takes a view on the development needs of the City
and suburbs as a whole. Details are contained in Section A.
The City Council believes that city governance should be unitary and
representative. Notwithstanding the fact that the population of the Limerick
suburbs are under-represented at present, and the City Council case makes it clear
that a boundary extension would redress this under-representation, the Limerick
County response states that the boundary extension ought not proceed because it
would interfere with the political base of existing (County Limerick) politicians.
Again details of the conflicting arguments are contained in Section A.
Limerick City Council has reviewed international practice in relation to the

reconfiguration of Local Authority Boundaries and has ascertained that best
international practice requires extensive consultation with the affected population.
e
The City Council therefore conducted a survey of public opinion amongst the
affected population and the conclusion of the survey was that the boundary
extension proposal would be likely carried by a plebiscite and there was no
significant opposition to the administration of the area by Limerick City Council.
Details of the international practice reviewed and surveys conducted are contained
in Section A and Appendix 9.
The City Council believes that cities should enjoy “joined-up” services. In
pursuance of this belief, the City Council offered to meet with both respondents in
order to present and clarify the proposal and answer any questions. This offer was
declined and no direct discussion or negotiation took place. The fact that neither
respondent authority was willing to engage in discussion with the City Council on
such an important matter, entirely contradicts the Limerick County assertion that
important matters of joint action can be achieved by voluntary, ad-hoc cooperation.
Clare entirely dismisses the idea of tripartite planning cooperation as “too
complicated”.
Several reasons were cited by the respondents for rejection but it is evident from the
responses that neither authority consulted with the other in drafting the responses,
nor is there evidence in the responses that the affected population was at all
consulted by either Authority. Clearly the respondents are unable to provide
“joined-up” policies either between themselves or together with the City Council.
That neither authority was willing to engage in discussion with the City Council on
such an important matter, entirely contradicts the Limerick County assertion that
important matters of joint action can be achieved by voluntary ad-hoc cooperation.
For instance, it is a key consideration of the UK Boundary Commission that,
following boundary adjustments, the resultant authorities should be ;
"... able to deliver services effectively without the need to resort to increased
levels of joint working".
Furthermore, international experience and best practice clearly concludes that "ad
hoc" arrangements such as proposed by Limerick County are both anti-democratic
and contrary to the requirements of transparency and accountability in local
administration.
Limerick City Council believes that City resources should be reinvested in the
City. In rejecting the City Council's case, the Limerick County response makes it
clear that the County's interest in retaining control of the Suburbs of Limerick is
primarily pecuniary. Limerick County requires the revenue generated from Rates
and Planning Contributions in the suburbs of Limerick in order that the burden of
financing infrastructural development is spread between the urban and rural areas
of the County. Although Limerick County describes this as "balanced regional
development" it is in fact involuntary subsidization of Limerick County alone. The
Clare response is again contradictory. When the City case demonstrates a potential
financial saving to Clare, the Clare response dismisses the financial subsidy benefit
as being an unimportant issue. Clearly Clare does not agree that financial subsidy
constitutes an integral part of "balanced regional development". Details are
contained in Section A, Section D and Section E.
In assessing the needs of Local Authorities the “Needs and Resources” model uses
target values to assess the amount of money required to provide a service by a
f
particular Local Authority. These target values are considered “best practice” in the
provision of Local Authority services and where appropriate they have been used in
this amended proposal to assess the expenditure that will be required to provide the
service in the added area. Both Limerick County Council and Clare County Council
have demonstrated in their responses that they are not spending the amounts of
money that this proposal indicates for the added area. It is Limerick City Council’s
view that this further proves the need for the boundary extension as it establishes
that there is under investment in the provision of services in the added area by the
two Local Authorities and that they are not providing services in line with best
practice guidelines indicated by the Needs and Resources Model.
Finally, in rejecting the Limerick City case, Limerick County Council's response
includes several errors of fact and misinterpretations. The Limerick County
Council’s response misinterprets the City Development Plan projections and
misinterprets the NSS and regional guidelines for the growth of the Limerick city
and suburbs areas. In assessing the lands available for development within the
present Borough Boundary, the Limerick County Survey includes in error, lands
which are already in use, as well as lands which are incapable of development.
Limerick County Council stated in its response that Ratepayers in the extended area
would pay additional rates of close to !50 Million. The conclusion is incorrect. In
order to reach this conclusion Limerick County Council adjusted the valuations of
properties in the added area by a factor of 26% upon transfer. The power to change
the valuation of a property can be exercised only if a material change in
circumstances has occurred to the property since the property was last valued.
Given that this assumption is incorrect, then the remainder of the financial
conclusions arrived at by Limerick County Council are also incorrect and cannot be
relied upon in any way.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The case of the City Council is well made in the DOEHLG report "Better Local
Government, A Programme for Change" -
- .... a town and its built up environs need to be treated as a coherent

unit ....
- .... the prime concern at all times must be the effective organization of
services and convenient service to the public, to whom intra-
organisational anomalies are simply a source of inconvenience ....
- .... there are circumstances where boundary alterations will be

necessary in the best interests of good organizational arrangements....
The City Council submits that the proposed boundary extension will ensure
effective and convenient local government for the entire Limerick urban area.
g
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
h
PREAMBLE
P.1 REVIEW OF RECENT EVENTS
P.1.1 Limerick City Council (variously described as Limerick County

Borough Council and Limerick Corporation) by resolution dated 14
October 1996 resolved to alter the boundary of Limerick City by
extending it, so as to include certain portions of the Counties of
Limerick and Clare, pursuant to the provisions of the Local
Government Act, 1991 (see Appendix 1 attached hereto).
P.1.2 The proposal, which was the subject of the resolution of 14 October
1996, passed through the statutory stages of notice, public display, etc.
P.1.3 A submission in favour of the proposal was made by Mr. Brian

Downey, Corbally.
P.1.4 Responses opposing the proposal were made by Clare County

Council and Limerick County Council, and submissions opposing the
proposal were made by Ennis Urban District Council, Clare Against
Boundary Extension (CABE), Clare Community Games and Mr.
Patrick Hayes, Drombanna Branch of Fine Gael.
P.1.5 Limerick City Council, following consideration of the responses to and

submissions on the proposal received within the period specified, by
resolution dated 8th February 1999 amended the proposal.
P.1.6 The responses of Clare County Council and Limerick County Council
were to oppose the proposal in principle. No revision to the proposal
was suggested and there was no attempt at dialogue on the part of the
respondents.
P.1.7 The amended proposal was submitted to the Minister for the
Environment on 8th February 1999.
P.1.8 No decision was made on the proposal by the Minister for the
Environment but following representation by the Mayor of Limerick
City, a letter was received from the Minister 's private secretary on 8th
July 2002. In the letter, the Minister advised that due to the passage of
time, the information on which the proposal was based had become
obsolete and advised that a fresh proposal be made based on up-to-
date information and in accordance with the 2001 Act.
P.1.9 The relevant sections of the 2001 Act had not yet been commenced by
October 2004 and still have not been commenced (October 2005) and
so the City Council decided to prepare a revised proposal in
accordance with the 1991 Act. In October 2004, the City Council
decided to publish this proposal and forwarded it to the Respondents,
Limerick and Clare County Councils. The City Council also invited
comment on the Internet and commissioned TNS/MRBI to sample the
opinions of the population affected.
1
P.1.10 Having considered the responses, the views expressed by the public
through correspondence, Internet and opinion survey, the City
Council meeting in June of 2005 resolved that the proposal be
amended with a view to submitting an application to the Minister.
P.2 LIMERICK CITY : HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT
P.2.1 Limerick is said to have been founded as a settlement in the year 155
AD. As a city it is thought to have been founded by the Vikings in the
9th century. The city received its first charter in 1197. Thereafter the
city grew steadily and prospered, becoming an administrative County
in its own right in 1898, a status that it retains to this day. A detailed
account of the administrative history of the city is set out in Appendix
2.
P.2.2 The current city boundary was determined in 1950 on foot of a petition
by the City Council pursuant to the Limerick City Management Act,
1934 (see Appendix 3). The present City measures 2,086 hectares
(5,155 acres).
P.2.3 In 1974 the City Council made a petition for a further boundary
extension, again pursuant to the Limerick City Management Act, 1934.
The 1974 application was not determined.
P.3 THE 1974 PETITION
P.3.1 The 1974 petition sought an extension of 3,822 hectares (9,440 acres)
into County Limerick and 1,347 hectares (3,329 acres) into County
Clare. Combined with the then current 2,086 hectares (5,155 acres),
the extended City would have comprised 7,255 hectares (17,928 acres).
P.3.2 The 1971 population of the City was 57,160. The 1971 population of
the extended City would have been 64,320.
P.3.3 The reasons for the 1974 petition included the following -
(i) The role of Limerick City as a regional centre was being

stifled.
(ii) The City was too small in physical extent to meet the
needs of its people.
(iii) The area of the City was too small to function properly
as a planning authority area.
(iv) The area of the City was too small to meet then current
and future needs of employment and housing.
2
Updated Material April 2010
P.1.10
As of April 2010, no decision has been made by the Minister on the proposal. However,
in 2008, following a recommendation by Mr John Fitzgerald, the Boundary of the City was extended in
Limerick County to incorporate the Electoral Division of Limerick North Rural within Limerick City. This lands
forming this partial extension were part of the original 1974 Petition and all subsequent applications.
In 2009, the Minister appointed a committee under section 32 of the Local Government Act 1991, the
Committee is tasked with preparing a report into the most appropriate arrangements for local government for
the City and County of Limerick. The Committee was asked in particular to make reccommendations on;
(1) Whether there should be changes made to the boundary of Limerick City, having examined the City
Council’s 2005 application for a boundary extension;
(2) Whether the County Council of Limerick and the City Council of Limerick should be unified;
(3) Whether alternative arrangements should be made to share/co-ordinate the functions, administration and
leadership of Limerick City and County, either at county/city level or on a wider and more regional basis;
(4) Whether there should be an adjustment between the boundary of County Clare and Limerick City or
County
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
(v) Persons who were dependent upon services provided by
Limerick City Council were without a franchise in that
they were not in the electorate of Limerick City Council.
The reasons for the 1974 petition are set out in greater detail in
Appendix 4.
P.3.4 It is the contention of the City Council that the reasons for the 1974
boundary extension petition have become more pressing in the
interim and that the speed of change has been accelerating, to the
detriment of the City as a whole.
P.4 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EVENTS
P.4.1 Documents and events relevant to the subject proposal include the
following -
- Report of the County and City Electoral Area Boundaries

Commission, 1985.
- Report of the Advisory Expert Committee on Local

Government Reorganisation and Reform, 1991.
- Statement of March 1991 on Local Government Reform

and 1994 Revision of Boundaries for Local Election
Purposes.
- Boundary Extensions to other Cities and Towns.
P.4.2 The documents and events listed above are discussed in Appendix 5.
P.5 LAYOUT OF PROPOSAL
P.5.1 The Local Government (Boundary Alteration) Regulations, 1996 set

out in article 4 the required content of a proposal for a boundary
extension. The requirements are itemised as paragraphs (a) to (g) of
the said article 4. The proposal follows the same (a) to (g) sequence of
topics in the form of Sections A to G below.
3
SECTION A : REASONS FOR PROPOSAL
A.1 EFFECTIVE AND CONVENIENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
A.1.1 The case of Limerick City Council for the proposed boundary
extension is based firmly on the need for "effective and convenient
local government", the expression used in section 31(1)(a) of the Local
Government Act, 1991 and repeated in the Act of 2001. That
expression is not defined in statute. The City Council considers that
the concept has interrelated dimensions for, on the one hand, local
authorities as the providers of services and, on the other hand, for the
public at large as the consumers of services. Of these two groups, the
City Council takes the view that the consumers are the dominant one,
that is to say local authorities are there to serve the needs of the
consumers and, as a consequence, that the terms "effective" ,
"convenient" and “governance” should be defined from the consumer
standpoint -
- Effectiveness has a cost dimension since services are

ultimately paid for, in whole or in part, by the taxpayer
and the ratepayer.
In addition effectiveness has a quality dimension in that

consumers are entitled to the highest practicable quality
of service.
There is also a quantitative dimension, that is to say,

services should be available in quantities sufficient to
meet the needs of consumers.
Finally, effectiveness has an equitable dimension, that is

to say, consumers should, as far as is practicable, receive
the same level of service regardless of consumer
location.
- Convenience has a spatial dimension whereby services

should be available as close as possible to consumers, a
dimension that also possesses aspects of sustainability in
terms of reducing journeys to a minimum.
Convenience also has a temporal dimension whereby

services should be available at times that suit the
consumers.
- Governance is required to be accountable to the

population served and transparent in its dealings to
deliver services.
4
A.1.2 The City Council has applied the concepts described immediately
above to the more obvious of its functions - the provision of services
such as roads, sewerage, waste management, libraries, etc. - and also
to the less obvious and less explicit of its services - the fostering of an
image for the City, the promotion of the City as a regional centre, the
countering of social imbalance, accountability to the population
served etc. In this regard the implementation of Better Local
Government will even enhance further the democratic and
collaborative processes necessary to provide a modern, effective and
relevant local government system. Central to the new approach is
the introduction of Strategic Policy Committees which will allow the
participative process of strategic planning to emerge. It is the
contention of Limerick City Council that the implementation of this
process can most effectively be performed by a single local authority
whose functions cover the entire area.
A.1.2.1 In this era of globalization, regard must also be had to the evolving
philosophies and policies of the European Union. In 1997 the EU
Commission adopted the Communication “Towards an Urban
Agenda in the European Union”. The Commission indicated its
intention to examine EU policies from the point of view of their urban
impact and to improve policy integration at urban level. In 2004 the
Commission acknowledging that some 80% of Europe’s citizens live
in urban areas proposed a thematic strategy on the urban
environment. This strategy proposes that cities and towns should be
designed, constructed and managed to support a healthy, vibrant,
inclusive and environmentally efficient economy, to support the well-
being of and meet the needs of its citizens in a sustainable manner,
and be sensitive to and work in harmony with the natural systems
which sustain it. On the question of local governance the commission
states that;
“The economic, social and environmental linkages between cities and

their surrounding regions are changing rapidly. There is considerable
inertia in institutional structures which may not be well suited to
changed conditions.”
A.1.3 In the rest of Section A of this proposal the City Council applies the
tests of effectiveness and convenience of governance, and their
related dimensions described above, to the relevant functions.
A.1.4 The City Council offered to provide appropriate staff members to

present and explain its case to the adjoining authorities. Neither
Authority accepted this offer. In so doing, both Authorities are in
effect saying that they have no wish to engage with Limerick City in a
spirit of partnership to discuss and debate what both acknowledge to
5
be the single most important issue affecting the City and the Mid
West Region in the coming years
A.2 REGIONAL ROLE
Limerick as a Regional Centre
A.2.1 This section examines the role of Limerick City in the context of the
Mid-West region and addresses the impact that a divided
administration may have on the effectiveness of the city's role in the
development of the region. It discusses an alternative proposed by
the respondents and also examines Government policy on the issue of
effective service delivery and concludes that the proposed City
boundary extension offers the best possible option in line with this
policy.
A.2.2 The role of Limerick as a regional capital is acknowledged for nearly

40 years as can be seen in the Buchanan and Lichfield Reports and in
the Land Use and Transportation Study (LUTS) Report 1970 - 1972.
"Limerick city as the major element in the regional core ....

and as the primary level in the projected urban hierarchy, has
an initial role to play in the development of a coherent and co-
ordinated regional settlement pattern which will enable the
Mid-West Region to function as an eminently viable economic
unit and as a strong and readily identifiable social unit". (Vol.
2,2)
A.2.3 The perception of Limerick City as an eminently viable and readily

recognised economic and social unit in the regional settlement pattern
is general. Logically this implies, a unitary form of local
administration. Since urban governance was not part of the LUTS
study brief, it was of no concern to the study team. What
unequivocally emerges is the view of the City and suburbs as a
single economic and social unit as it is also in terms of the built
environment.
A.2.4 As stated in the 1974 boundary petition -
"For coherence and effectiveness of performance of Limerick

City as a regional centre, it is necessary that the wider area
in which the resources and dynamic that support the
performance of the regional centre role be administered as a
single entity in respect of the major local government
factors".
6
A.2.5 Regionally the city is viewed as a hub encompassing the adjoining
suburbs and built up areas. It is the nub of the City Council's case
that the partitioning of that hub and its administration is not the most
effective and convenient way of maintaining the health of the City.
The City Council is alone amongst the Planning Authorities of the
region in recognizing the existence of a functional City area
encompassing suburbs and is alone in anticipating its growth needs
and making explicit provision in its development plan. The City and
its suburbs are recognized by independent bodies as a unit as can be
seen in this statement by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in
2005;
“The Clare constituency excludes 2002 population of 3,913 in part of

the Ballyglass electoral division of County Clare, which has been
included in the Limerick East constituency since 1990 on the
basis that it includes suburbs of Limerick City.”
A.2.6
The NSS has identified and forecast the roles of Irish cities and towns,
including the identification and designation of regional “gateway”
and “Hub” developments, to promote integrated and balanced
development between urban and rural communities throughout
Ireland. Such “gateways” are planned to drive social and economic
development throughout their surrounding counties and regions, by
virtue of their critical mass, population, economic base, support
services and infrastructure. In relation to the MidWest and to
Limerick in particular, the NSS states that;
“Ennis as a hub will support Limerick-Shannon; taking advantage of

the latter’s relationship with the Limerick-Shannon gateway and its
strategic location between Limerick and Galway. Other towns and
rural areas should be supported in developing complementary roles,
which avail of the spin-off benefits, which the performance of the
Limerick-Shannon gateway will bring to the region”.
A.2.7 The Mid-West Regional Guidelines also recognise the importance of

Limerick and the key role of the City in the development of the
Region;
"The Mid West Region is unique in several respects. The region

features a strong central core, embracing Limerick City and the
nearby centres of Shannon and Ennis. Together they create an urban
agglomeration that is centrally located within the region and that has
the potential to be accessed from all its parts. Limerick is the main
settlement of the region and Shannon and Ennis complement
its role."
7
In pursuance of this objective, Limerick City Council initiated a
leadership role in its submission to the Regional Authority in respect
of the Regional Guidelines recommended as follows;
"Limerick City Council recommends that Zone 1 (Limerick-Shannon-

Ennis) be managed in a cooperative way to ensure development and
that there be a special interest group on the promotion of industrial
sectors"
This proposal has been accepted and incorporated in the Regional

Guidelines. This demonstrates the Vision of the City Council for the
development of the Region.
A.2.8 The role of cities in driving economic development is widely

recognized in Europe. For example, Mr Richard Leese, leader of
Manchester City Council leader of the “Core Cities” Project, speaking
at the Summit of Regions and Cities, organised by the European
Union’s Committee of the Regions in Wroclow, stated that
competitive cities must be recognised as playing a vital role in
boosting economic growth and creating more jobs in Europe:
“Cities have the potential to galvanise and drive the economies in

their immediate regions. Prosperous regions need successful cities.
They provide most of their nations’ wealth and prosperity. They
provide most of the European Union’s wealth and prosperity.”
The Counter-argument : Inter-authority Co-operation
A.2.9 The counter-argument suggest that inter-authority co-operation in

the past has operated to the benefit of the community and that some
unnecessary duplication has been averted. One proposed alternative
to the boundary extension is to encourage and develop the process of
inter-authority co-operation.
A.2.10 Dublin City is cited as a functional unit managed by four City and
County authorities without diminution of effective and convenient
local government. The validity of this comparison, in relation to
Limerick City and the proposed boundary extension is open to
question. The Dublin City region comprises 28.6 per cent of the
national population compared to 2.3 per cent in Limerick City, its
suburbs and the proposed boundary extension area. Its division into
multiple independent authorities has more to do with achieving
appropriate representation in governance than effectiveness or
convenience in Administration.
A.2.11 It is the City Council's view that co-operation, while essential to the
conduct of business, does not lead to effective administration and an
8
A.2.10
It would appear that Government now sees merit in providing for a mayor of Dublin to be elected from the
area of former Dublin City and County. The purpose of this office is solely and primarily to provide
coordination in the planning of the four authorities replacing the former Dublin City and County. This Mayor
will provide a strategy focus and most important will provide a single regional plan for the whole of Dublin
City and former County. Clearly Government must now be of the view that cooperation alone is an
insufficient means to achieve development goals. The objectives of this new Regional plan will be sacrosanct
and will take precedence over the wider regional guidelines for Dublin and the Mid East.
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
h
argument which may have some validity in relation to matters of
representation and governance at the scale of one third of the
national population certainly loses its validity when applied to an area
comprising less than 3 per cent of the national population.
Nevertheless, in three principal areas the City Council has attempted
joint and co-ordinated action to achieve common policy aims. In retail
strategy, in housing strategy and in city and county development
strategy. In all cases the adjoining counties have rejected close or
meaningful coordination. Even if there were cooperation it is very
unlikely that a soverign authority would allow its statutory functions
to be compromised, particularly if such compromise impacts on its
income stream.
A review of international experience confirms that this lack of

cooperation is not unusual. The following quotation from a paper
entitled “The experience of metropolitan governance” by Mike
Goldsmith of Salford University (2002) states the position succinctly;
“Voluntary cooperation efforts in metropolitan areas focus on

economic development, strategic planning, transportation and land
use. Such cooperation may be good in terms of securing grand
projects such as new tram systems, conference centres and other
infrastructural facilities, but they largely ignore (and may aggravate)
the issues raised by increasing social segregation and social
marginalization.”
The Boundary Commission for England also concurs in this view as

exemplified by its commentary on the creation of unitary authorities
in Cheshire. A key value of the commission is that
"...they (the new local authorities) would be able to deliver services

effectively without the need to resort to increased levels of joint
working."
A.2.12 While Limerick County Council promotes the view that any
problems can be resolved by more cooperation, Clare firmly rejects
this view stating in their response that;
"Delivery on objectives such as ... the development of a strong

settlement structure would be unnecessarily complicated by the
introduction of an additional planning authority and would not
benefit an effective and convenient approach to dealing with such
issues".
Thus there is no agreement between the respondents on the need for

nor the value of, cooperative working.
Better Local Government
9
A.2.12 The report "Better Local Government, A Programme for Change,
1996", noting the extension of electoral areas to include most of the
census environs surrounding particular towns, states that these
extensions were a recognition "that a town and its built up environs
need to be treated as a coherent unit". (7.19).
A.2.13 In considering boundary revision, according to the report,
"the prime concern at all times must be the effective organisation of

services and convenient service to the public, to whom intra-
organisational anomalies are simply a source of inconvenience" (para.
7.20).
The Programme for Change goes on to state (para. 7.21) that there
are circumstances where boundary alteration will be necessary in the
best interests of good organisational arrangements. The 2001 Act
Page 19 and Sec 64 confirms this view of the local community whose
interests are to be promoted by the Local Authority defining the
community as;
“local community means persons ordinarily resident in the

administrative area of the local authority concerned and, where
relevant as regards a function of the authority, includes
persons from outside that area who regularly use facilities of
a social, economic, recreational, cultural or other nature
provided by the authority”
A.2.14 Achievement of effectiveness and convenience in the delivery and

quality of urban functions and services is a cogent reason for the
establishment of a one-stop-shop approach to the administration,
planning and servicing of the city and its built up area. Again this is
supported by modern legislative developments in the US where the
Growth Management Act states clearly;
“In addition to encouraging the annexation of Urban Growth Areas,

the Growth Management Act also provides that ” in general, cities
are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban
governmental services.” Quoted in How the Growth Management
Act Changed Annexation & Current Issues in Annexation by
Tim Trohimovich, Washington State.
Conclusion
A.2.15 From the standpoint of future development of the region and in the
context of government policy, the single authority approach is
effective and convenient because -
10
- It confirms the city and its built up area as a single
coherent unit.
- Authority is vested in one administrative body charged

with the implementation of a single agreed
comprehensive policy for the wider built up area as
intended by the Local Government Act.
- It facilitates ease of administration, openness and

transparency of governance.
- It avoids duplication and inter-organisational anomalies
- It offers economies of scale in the provision of services.
- It reduces delay and allows consistency in decision

making by reducing the need for consultation (often
prolonged), the need for consensus (not always
achieved) as well as the need for co-ordination
associated with a divided jurisdiction.
- It allows all citizens in the area to have a say in the

running and future of the City
A.3 PROMOTION OF CITY
Statutory Context
A.3.1 Section 6 of the Local Government Act, 1991, replaced by Sec 66 of the
Local Government Act of 2001, states that a local authority may
"promote the interests of the local community" as regards "the social,
economic, environmental, recreational, cultural, community or
general development of the functional area.... of the local authority or
of the local community....". The City Council considers that the entire
built up area of Limerick, embracing the City and the environs
beyond the City boundary, constitute a continuum and that Limerick
can most effectively be promoted by a local authority that has a
vision for the city as a whole and the ability to fulfill that vision.
Neither Clare nor Limerick Counties demonstrate a vision that
encompasses this entire area. The Limerick County Development
Plan contains no comprehensive vision of the area, dividing it
between three Local Area Plans (Caherdavin, Southern Environs and
Castletroy). The Clare Development Plan and the South Clare Plan
acknowledges that the built up townlands adjoining the City
boundary are suburban districts of Limerick City but then fails to deal
with them in that context. Indeed the Clare response somewhat
incongruously contradicts the County Clare Development Plan and
denies that these areas are in fact suburbs of Limerick City;
11
"... it is clear that there is not an incontrovertible case that the
Limerick Environs of Clare can be deemed to be a suburb of Limerick
County Borough."
This is strangely at odds with the Independent Electoral Commission

cited above.
A Vision for the City
A.3.2 The City Council has striven, with even greater emphasis in recent
times, to create a vision for the city, an image that draws and builds
upon its unique and positive aspects including its central role within
its wider hinterland. This vision, set out in the Limerick City
Development Plan 2004, encapsulates plan objectives within the Plan's
primary goal - The promotion of Economic and Community
Development. Achievement of this goal is seen as extending beyond
the city and the city centre to the functional hinterland of the city and
as part of a concerted effort on the co-operation of all interested
parties inside and outside the city. The realisation of the vision is
founded on the implementation of an integrated set of direct and
indirect strategies - providing the availability of land and
infrastructure as a stimulus for economic growth, the encouragement
of private investment and development through positive planning
control policies, the attraction of inward investment, the promotion of
tourism and the general enhancement of the urban environment.
A.3.3 The City Council firmly believes that the fostering of a single vision
for the city as a whole and the implementation of that vision for the
economic and social betterment of the people of the city can most
effectively be done by a single local authority responsible for the city.
The City Council welcomes the call by Shannon Development for the
creation of just such a vision and supports the “Riverside City”
initiative as a welcome contribution to that vision. It notes with regret
the non-participation of Limerick and Clare County Councils in the
preparation of that vision.
A.3.4 The view of Limerick County is that in order to achieve Balanced

Regional Development, it is
" ... essential that the burden of financing necessary infrastructural

investment and maintaining existing levels of service is shared
between the urban and rural areas of the county."
Clearly this is not balanced Regional development but subsidized

County development and Limerick County admit to spending !3.96 M
per year less than they raise in income in the added area. This amount
represents 50% of the rates raised.
12
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
h
A.4.2
Between 1981 and 2006, the city declined more in population than any other city. The loss was -13.5%
compared with -12.41% for Cork.
Natural increase - expressed as the excess of births over deaths was the third highest in the country at 8.26
per thousand.
Despite the rate of natural growth, nett migration for Limerick was -10.14 per thousand again compared with
the next nearest Cork again at 8.29 per thousand.
According to Clare County;
"The key objective of the (Clare) spatial strategy was to ensure a

balanced and equitable spread of development across the county to
support the vitality of rural populations (p.90)".
The support of rural populations is again made pre-eminent and

transcends a coordinated regional strategy. The existence of Limerick
City is hardly mentioned (other than as one of the constituent
authorities of the Mid West Region). Clare thus entirely rejects a
regional approach to development regarding the whole notion of the
RPG's as being solely
"For the benefit of the rural hinterland of the Limerick suburbs and to
disperse the benefits of economic growth... "
These statements contradict the purported solution advocated by

both authorities that increased cooperation is the solution to the
continued growth of the city
A.4 POPULATION GROWTH
City Population
A.4.1 The population of Limerick City peaked at 60,736 persons in 1981 and
declined steadily thereafter to 52,039 persons in 1996 and rose slightly
again to 54,058 in 2002. The pattern and extent of negative population
growth, 10.9 per cent over 20 years is put in sharp relief by the
parallel, 152.4 per cent in the proposed added area over the same
period when population increased from 15,554 to 39,263 persons. By
1996 the population of the proposed added area accounted for 35.9 of
the population of the extended city compared to 7.8 per cent after the
boundary extension of 1950 and by 2002 the added area comprised
42% of the extended city. Between 1951 and 2002 population in the
added area increased by 814 per cent compared to a 6.35 per cent
increase in the Borough (see Table 1 and Illustration 1).
A.4.2 Between 1981 and 2002 Limerick City recorded the largest population
decline of all the cities 10.9 per cent, compared to 9.0 and 9.7 per cent
respectively in Dublin and Cork. Galway and Waterford Citys, cities
of comparable size, increased in population by 52.3 and 15.9 per cent
respectively (see Table 2).
A.4.3 Despite an average annual natural increase (excess of births over

deaths) of 4.1 per 1,000 average population in Limerick City, the
estimated net migration rate (inward less outward population flow)
was -4.3, the highest rate nationally. The rates of natural increase in
13
Dublin and Cork cities was lower at 3.3 and 3.2 respectively as were
the estimated net migration rates of -1.9 and -3.3 per 1,000 average
population. The rates for Galway and Waterford are set out in Table
2.
Extension Area Population
A.4.4 The number of persons currently resident in the proposed boundary

extension area (estimated 39,263 in 2002) emphasises the role of the
city as a focus for urbanisation within the region. Whether through
population overspill from the city or through immigration from the
county area and elsewhere, the growth of population in the proposed
added area is driven by its proximity to the city. Between 1951 and
2002 population growth in the proposed added area accounted for 58
per cent of total regional population growth over the period.
A.4.5 Neither Clare nor Limerick County takes a view on the possible or
probable growth of the combined Limerick City and suburbs in their
respective development plans. In its response Limerick County
seriously misinterprets the Regional Planning guidelines and the
projections contained in the City Development Plan. Limerick County
most seriously and fundamentally misinterprets the RPG's when it
anticipates that the population of RPG Zone 1 will rise from 175,000 to
250,000 by 2020. This represents a growth of 75,000 persons. However,
the RPGs in fact envisage a growth in the Zone 1 area of a mere 25,000
persons over the same period. The RPG's in fact anticipate a growth in
the populations of the whole region of only 65,000 persons. If the
County statement is an accurate representation of the County’s
interpretation, then the County must anticipate an internal migration
of 10,000 persons into Zone 1 from elsewhere in the region. Such is
unlikely to be the case and therefore we must accept that the County
is grossly in error in its interpretation of the RPGs and the projections
contained therein.
A.4.6 The broader misinterpretation of the Zone 1 development is further

compounded by Limerick Co Council in relation to simply counting
the years between 2002 and 2012 to assess the annual rate of growth
presented in the City Development Plan. It is of course seven years
from 2005 to 2012, but it is ten years from 2002 to 2012 - the period
actually anticipated by the City Council projections. The City estimate
then becomes a growth rate of 1.3% pa to 1.9% pa, thus straddling the
observed rate of 1.5% pa from 1996 to 2002. The County analysis is
thus grossly in error. Additionally, in table 5 of the County response,
the percentage change tabled for the State is incorrect. - it should be
8% rather than 11% and thus it should be noted that Limerick City
(including suburbs) had a higher rate of growth (9% in six years or
14
A.4.4
The calculation of the population for the proposed added area is rendered complicated by the distinction of
“villages” within what would otherwise be suburbs.
Annacotty in Limerick and Athlunkard in Clare are growing rapidly. All of Annacotty is within the proposed
extension area and part of Athlunkard is likewise inside.
Using Geodirectory the population of the extension area in 2009 is estimated as 40,606. Of this total more
than 6,000 is located in Clare and the balance in Limerick.
The 2002 figure quoted in Para A.4.4 included an estimate of about 7,000 for Limerick North Rural which
has since been absorbed into the City. Thus the original extension area has increased by nearly 8,000
persons.
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
h
1.5% pa) than the national average between 1996 and 2002. Limerick
County then offers its view on the growth in population in the
Limerick County Suburbs.
"the environs of County Limerick, (sic) namely Castletroy,

Caherdavin and the Southern Environs are predicted to grow by
between 10,000 and 22,000 people up to 2022."
It should be noted in relation to the lower County figure (10,000) that

the population of the DED’s in the environs of Limerick rose by nearly
8,000 persons in the six years from 1996 to 2002 and the Boundary
Extension Area rose by an estimated 10,000 (1,600 per annum) over
the same period. If Limerick City is to become a model of compact
growth and a driver of economic growth for the region, then this
lower estimate of 10,000 for the Limerick suburbs in 20 years (500 per
annum) is a remarkably modest expectation to say the least and is
certainly not in line with the expectations of the NSS. Likewise the
expectations contained in the Clare Development Plan are also
modest. The whole of the South Clare area (including Shannon and
the Suburbs of Limerick) is expected to grow by no more than 4,000
persons over the next 20 years (200 per annum) even though the
growth between 1996 and 2002 was 3,000 persons (500 per annum)
and the majority of this growth was in the Clare Suburbs of Limerick.
Clearly Limerick City Council is the only authority with a clear

accurate, consistent and unambiguous vision of the future of
Limerick City which accords with the adopted regional guidelines.
A.5 LACK OF DEVELOPMENT LAND
General Assessment
A.5.1 The City Council stated in the original (1998) proposal that there was
insufficient land available within the City to accommodate the proper
functioning and growth of the City. In response it was stated by
Limerick and Clare County Councils that that was not the case and
examples were cited of lands that could be used for such a purpose.
A.5.2 The City Council submits that the respondents are mistaken in their
assessment of lands within the City that are available and suitable for
development. For example, lands zoned for open space purposes
were cited. The City Council submits that the use of such lands for
development purposes is wrong in principle and, in addition, because
of the topographical setting of the City, much of those lands is in
poorly drained, riparian locations and is unsuited to development and
is the subject of various National and EU designations. Furthermore,
as a general principle the respondents are mistaken as to the
15
availability of lands. For example, they cite lands associated with fully
functioning educational and other institutions, lands that are unlikely
to become available for development in the foreseeable future, if
ever.
In its current (2005) response, Limerick County Council presents a

survey which it claims to have made, of lands available for
development within the present city Boundary. The survey is
presented in map form at the rear of the County Council response.
The survey is grossly inaccurate and contains some bizarre examples
of land said to be at present available for housing including lands
already in use for commercial development and lands patently
unsuitable for development. Many sites are already in use as for
example in the Docks Area for Industrial and Commercial Use
including premises such as McMahons, Heatons, Roches Feeds and
many other too numerous to mention. Within the Docks, the floating
dock and dry dock are proposed to be available for housing despite
their obvious historic importance. Developments are already in
progress on lands at Edward St and are in fact complete at the
Watchhouse Cross. The Church, School, Playground and Community
centre at Moyross. , together with lands at Corbally and Reboge have
been substantially developed despite being shown in the County
survey as "available".
Lands at the former landfill Longpavement which consist of mounded

refuse, which are outgassing methane are not suitable for residential
development. This has been confirmed by the EPA. Also lands at the
Dock Road which are within both the grounds of the Shell tank farm
as well as the HSA exclusion area are not suitable for housing.
Residential Use
A.5.3 With regard to undeveloped land zoned for residential use within the
City, there is a total of 182 hectares (449 acres). Of this total, 60
hectares (148 acres) are currently in educational and related private
open space use and are unlikely to become available for residential
development in the foreseeable future. Thus, the amount of land that
is potentially developable for residential proposes is a mere 122
hectares (301 acres). It should be borne in mind that in a free market
situation, the zoning of land for development is no guarantee that
that land will become available for development, that is to say, a
prudent planning authority should zone more land than is projected
to be required.
A.5.4 Between 1996 and 2002, a total of 6,514 dwellings were recorded by
the Quarterly Bulletin of Housing Statistics as having been built within
the boundary in Limerick City. However the Census of population
for the year 2002 records that only 2,248 houses were built within the
City and the total number of houses rose by only 1,800 during the
period. The discrepancy arises because many people, living in the
16
A.5.3
The recent boundary extension in the Caherdavin area adds potential to create additional housing although
in the current climate this potential is significantly muted.
A.5.4
The City Council notified the DEHLG and ESB of the problems of address notification in the matter of locating
newly built houses. This has resulted in a more accurate count of new house construction. According to the
Census of ‘06 only 2244 houses were reported as having been constructed in the City between 2001 and
2006. The total number of houses in the Borough rose by only 611 to 19, 513.
A.6.1
Clare regards the suburbs of Limerick not as suburbs but as “villages” whose planning can be best arranged
within the wider rural area of Clare.
Limerick North Rural having been absorbed into the the city, there are now only four different statutory plans
governing the City and Suburbs;
City Plan
Limerick - Southern Environs
Limerick - Castletroy
South East Clare
But to these must be added the Northside and Southside Regeneration Plans.
suburbs, are unaware of where the Boundary lies. Such persons
incorrectly believe themselves to be living within the Borough.
Limerick City Council conducted a survey of the affected population
during 2005 through TNS-MRBI and confirmed that almost 30% of the
population did not know that they were living outside the boundary
of Limerick City. Apart from the statistical difficulties which this
creates for a Planning Authority, mis-reporting of addresses also
causes difficulties for the Mid Western Health Board in attempting to
derive morbidity statistics for the Urban Area. More than 20 per cent
of patients treated at the Regional Hospital record their addresses as
being within the Borough when in fact they are resident outside and
in the suburbs.
A.6 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Statutory Development Planning
A.6.1 In terms of urban function the entire Limerick city area performs as a
single, complex entity. The City Council considers that in order to
ensure that needs and changes in that complex urban system are
controlled and directed in the most effective and convenient manner
it is essential to have an integrated approach to the physical planning
and development of the area. This approach should be contained in
the statutory development plans for the urban area, that is to say in
the Limerick City Development Plan, the Limerick County
Development Plan and the Clare County Development Plan. It is the
contention of the City Council that there is little co-ordination
between these Development Plans and that, as a result, the urban
area cannot perform to its full potential. The County Councils are
focused differently from the City Council and it is not possible for all
three authorities to have the same focus as they differ significantly as
regards their priorities. Examples of this disjointed approach are the
route of the Northern Ring Road in Castletroy, Retail Strategy and
Housing Strategy.
A.6.2 Clare County Council makes no specific provisions for the Limerick
environs in its development plan save as part of the wider South East
Clare Economic Corridor stretching from Newmarket-on-Fergus to
Limerick, despite the fact that there are over 1,000 existing dwellings
in the area in question and outstanding planning permission for a
further 800 dwellings approximately and permissions being received
in the area at the rate of 100 urban generated applications per annum
(each of which could be for a number of dwellings). Yet at the same
time Clare County Council expresses the view that the future growth
of Limerick can be accommodated by developing on amenity lands
within the City and by building to higher densities on brownfield sites
17
there. Notwithstanding the fact that Clare County Council recognises
the suburbs of Limerick as such in its County Development Plan,
Clare County in its response is still of the view that;
"The planning issues and issues of identity facing the settlements to the
north of Limerick can best be met through a common strategy for their
integration into the wider area of rural settlements rather than in their
integration into a larger urban area."
Clare County Council goes on to insist that development ought to be

restricted in the Clare Suburbs because lands are available for
development in Limerick County;
"If any area is to be included in the Limerick County Borough area it

should be that area which is within the same county and which has already
been identified and serviced for development."
Clare also states that there are inadequate services in the Limerick
Suburbs area thus limiting development there;
"North Limerick Environs, the Gilloge area, is also identified for

expansion but is constrained from development in the short term due to
poor roads and drainage infrastructure."
This statement from the South Clare Economic Corridor Plan is directly
in contradiction of other statements in the response in which Clare
County claims credit for the provision of services which has made the
Clare Suburbs an attractive zone for development. Through such
contradictions it is apparent that County Clare wishes to focus on the
rural areas of Clare and rejects participation through partnership in
planning of the future growth and development of Limerick City
A.6.3 Limerick County Council in its Development Plans for the environs of
Limerick does not acknowledge that Clare is involved at all in the
development of the city and seems to regard the County Limerick
suburbs as distinct and separate from the city as a whole. In its
statement of response, Limerick County states that
"Within Limerick the approach for deciding where urban growth should
occur and where urban containment should prevail is imperative to the
successful achievement of a sustainable compact city and it is contended
that this role and function has been successfully performed by Limerick
County Council over the years ..."
Limerick County says that it wishes to prevent outward sprawl into

the environs - but yet it plans the environs as separate townships
around district centres, some of which compete in terms of floorspace
with the City Centre. This action is directly in conflict with the
statements made in the response and the response is in turn in conflict
18
with the policies and objectives as expressed in the County
Development Plan. The County Council has also varied its County
plan to permit greater sprawl by limiting the area of special
development control.
Adequacy of Development Plan Integration
A.6.4 The lack of a coherent overall plan for the greater Limerick urban
area is exemplified by issues such as -
- There is no evident consideration of positive or

negative externalities that might be generated by
development proposals in the County areas for
developments that impinge significantly on City
structure and services.
- While there is some prior discussion between

officials of both city and county councils, concerning
statutory development plan reviews, this cannot
substitute for transparent and accountable debate
between the elected councils on important planning
issues. It is contrary to the representation of the
interests of the local community (as provided in the
Local Government Acts) that this has not occurred.
- In the absence of adequate prior discussion, the City

Council finds that it must make submissions on
published draft Development Plans, with little
noticeable results. Although Planning Authorities are
not bound by time limits in making observations on
adjoining plans, it is nevertheless interesting to note
that, Limerick County rejected the observations of
Limerick City on the Caherdavin Local Area Plan,
even though under Section 9 (5) of the 2000 Act they
were obliged to take these observations into
account.
- In the field of retailing, of central importance to the

viability and vitality of the city centre, although a
jointly prepared retail strategy has been prepared by
all authorities, both County Councils have rejected
the placing of limits on the scale of development in
the suburbs. Thus the policies of both County
Councils do not take account of the effect that
decisions on major suburban development proposals
19
A.6.4
In 2007, the DEHLG required that Limerick City, Limerick County and Clare County
jointly prepare a joint Housing Strategy, a joint Retail Strategy and a joint Recreation
Strategy. Limerick City would lead the Retail Strategy, Limerick County would lead the
Housing Strategy and Clare would Lead the Recreation Strategy. The Retail Strategy was
completed in 2009 but has not yet been considered by the respective councils. The
Housing Strategy is still ongoing and the Recreation Strategy has not yet been initiated.
Retail Strategy
The recently completed study of Mid-West Retailing by Colliers concluded that

Limerick City Centre, whilst at the top of the retail hierarchy, has suffered most from
competition from other suburban and out of centre comparison shopping destinations.
In the past there appears to have been a belief that any retail investment was good as it
created wealth and jobs.
What the developments over the last few years have shown, however, is that new retail
development in one location unsupported by a corresponding growth in expenditure
will divert trade from an existing location elsewhere, with a consequent disinvestment
and loss of jobs there.
The review of retail need has demonstrated that this potential was over estimated and
since 2003, there has been a very significant growth in retail floor space, a level of
growth which has even outstripped even the level of capacity identified in the 2003
Retail Strategy.
The quantitative assessment of retail need underpinning the 2003 Retail Strategy
identified significant potential for the development of additional retail floorspace.
Limerick County interpreted the 2003 strategy by concluding that if floorspace could
not be immediately provided in the City Centre, then Limerick County Council
proposed that it should be met elsewhere within the Metropolitan Area.
Whilst there has been growth across the region, the bulk of new floorspace has been
provided in the Limerick Metropolitan Area. However there has been relatively little
growth in the City Centre itself. As a consequence the relative importance of the City
Centre has declined.
Limerick City Council sought to restrain the development of out-of town shopping
floorspace, in particular in relation to the proposed expansion of the Crescent Shopping
Centre. The City Council argued at the Oral Hearing that the “sequential test” mandated
by the Ministerial Guidelines ought to favour the City Centre as the first location for the
provision of any new space.
However, as reported in the Limerick Leader in March 2009, Limerick County Council
proposed the view that the City Centre should be accorded no special status:
"The Crescent is in fact the core of the Dooradoyle centre and under the sequential test
qualifies as a town centre. Under the retail planning guidelines, it is actually one of six
town centres in the Limerick area."
may have on the city centre. In view of the emphasis
placed on financial impact in the Limerick County
response, the clear conclusion is that such policies are
driven by financial rather than planning requirement
since each new centre generates up to !5,000,000 in
capital contributions.
- In planning for retailing in the suburbs there is no

coherent policy. For example, there is an area that
straddles the Limerick City/Limerick County
boundary that is designated in both statutory
development plans as the District Centre for
Caherdavin, yet in Limerick County Council's
review of the development plan for Caherdavin an
extensive area of land is zoned for commercial use,
including retailing, a short distance away and further
out the Ennis Road. Permission has been granted
here for a second major Shopping Centre totaling
nearly 500,000 Sq Ft. At the Same time the Clare
County Plan has proposed a rezoning of lands
further out again for Commercial purposes on the
grounds that is “green field” and adjacent to the
proposed Motorway Intersection. Both decisions are
contrary to the spirit and letter of the Ministerial
decision on Retailing.
- In the Clare suburbs no areas are zoned for public

open space. Consequently, the City Council has had
to overcompensate in its zonings in an attempt to
ensure that the population of the City and suburbs is
adequately provided for, taken as a whole.
- The environs in both County areas contain extensive

tracts of sporadic and ribbon development, mostly
of a residential nature. This development places
major constraints on the proper planning of future
urban expansion.
- In attempting to agree a joint Housing Strategy as

stipulated by law under the Planning Act 2000,
neither County Council has agreed to jointly address
the provision of social housing in the suburbs.
- The County Development Board strategies,

prepared by the adjoining counties, make no
provision for integration with the City Development
Board Strategy nor are there any efforts to make
such joint provision.
20
Policy Focus
A.6.5 Of the three local authorities only the City Council has the city as its
sole policy focus. The extended city within the proposed boundary
extension is but part of the remit of the other authorities. It has been
submitted that the proper planning and management of the areas can
easily be achieved by -
- adequate liaison between the authorities,

- a proper consideration of each other's Development
Plans when development proposals are being
considered and
- the preparation of a joint Development Plan for the area
in question if necessary.
A.6.6 Apart from the considerations involved in deciding when liaison is

adequate, consideration proper, and joint plans necessary, it is
patently evident that this is not the most convenient method of
management and planning and it is ineffective to the extent that,
given the different objectives of the three authorities, consensus is not
always achieved or achievable.
Urbanisation and the Urban Economy
A.6.7 Urbanisation is defined as the spatial agglomeration of

population and activities. The definition combines two
elements, the spatial/physical and the economic. The
spatial/physical element emphasises the high density
settlement of the continuous built up area, the economic
element recognises the concentration of employment in the
industrial and service sectors.
A.6.8 The urban area may be viewed as an economy comprising a

complex of markets: a land market, a housing market, a labour
market, a capital market and a market for goods and services.
Each market has a spatial context that is independent of
administrative boundaries. The areal extent of the labour
market, for example, is determined by the maximum
commuting range. The catchment area for services ranges
from the local to the regional depending on the nature of the
particular service.
A.6.9 In its response to the City’s proposal, Limerick County refers

to the British “Core Cities” project and promotes it as a model
of partnership for future urban regional development. In fact
Core Cities is nothing of the sort. In 1995 the City Councils of
seven major English regional cities began working together to
set out a vision of the distinctive role that big cities must play in
21
national and regional life in the new century, and as the
analysis which is even quoted in the County response makes
clear, saying on page 19 that;
"One of the key challenges is to align governance with

economic and social objectives. ... cities are fragmented between
different local authorities with limited mechanisms for
achieving coordination on key policy goals"
which is precisely why the City Council has proposed a boundary

extension - in order to align local governance with both the social and
economic objectives of urban development. The Core Cities participants
go on to state that;
“Cities need to provide the modern infrastructure and services which

communities – both in cities and in their regions – which are now
looking forward into the new century expect and have a right to
receive. That is the size of the challenge the Core Cities are determined
to meet successfully. It is a challenge that requires a positive and
effective partnership between the cities and Government.”
This analysis is confirmed by the subsequent British Government

background studies leading to a white paper on Urban Policy – “The
state of English Cities”. This quote is rather long but the analysis is very
pertinent
“Cities and regions often do not function well together even though
problems and opportunities frequently cross urban and regional
boundaries. But typically this is not recognised, and this gives rise to
such problems as:
• fiscal exploitation, with the region using but not paying for
services provided by the city;
• local tax regimes which encourage municipalities to compete
against each other;
• administrative boundaries which are often too
narrowly drawn to make economic or social sense.
• the physical segregation of excluded communities, with an
unwillingness across the region to collaborate and share
services and financial responsibility for those communities;
Partnership structures or multi-level collaboration may go some way

towards achieving this, but regions with fewer transactional costs in
mounting territorially competitive policies will be more successful
than those without. And there are likely to be fewer transaction costs
where the boundaries of the administration are wider and fit more
closely with the functional urban region. In other words, cities will
be more economically successful in an increasingly competitive
European marketplace when their government boundaries most
clearly approximate their functional economic areas”.
22
A.6.10 Urban growth leading to overspill and administrative sub-
division can give rise to problems. Many decision makers
introduce an element of competition and trade off as each
endeavours, quite properly, to maximise benefits and/or
minimise social costs to their own area. Where achieved,
consensus inevitably involves compromise.
A.6.11 If efficiency in operation is to be maximised (like management

effect) and the quality of public services maintained and
increased (the distributional effect) then a common framework
of objectives is necessary. This would be best constructed and
implemented by a single authority charged with the
administration of the city, its suburbs and contiguous lands.
A.7 SOCIAL IMBALANCE
Demographic and Socio-economic Indicators
A.7.1 Rural depopulation is quite properly a matter of local, regional and

national concern. Loss of population from the City to the periphery
creates similar socio-economic problems and calls for the same level
of concern.
A.7.2 The drift from the city of the younger, more affluent and skilled
sectors of the population gives rise to social imbalance reflected in
negative changes in the demographic/socio-economic structure of the
City. The recent profile of Limerick City notes that
“The reduction in socio spatial polarization is not just desirable on

grounds of social equity; the problem represents a major constraint on
the city’s ability to realize its potential and as such must be of concern to
all involved in the city’s development.”
A.7.3 Negative demographic and socio-economic indicators over the period

1981 to 2002 include the following -
- Declining natural increase as death rates in the City rise

and birth rates fall.
- The fall in numbers in the 0-14 year school going cohort

– down 42%.
23
A.7.3
Between 1981 and 2006, the fall in the under 14 age group is more than 48% - from 18,200 to 9,300.
Almost one thousand children of school-going age have migrated out of the city with consequent impact on
City schools.
The population of the city over the age of 65 has increased by 17%
The following is an extract from the study ‘Facing Challenging Times - (Profile of the City) prepared by Prof
Des McCafferty which presents the continuing social imbalance and is based on statistics from the 2006
Census.
A number of significant trends emerge from this analysis and mapping of the census of population for 2006, a
year which represents something of a watershed in Ireland and in Limerick, marking as it does the end of a
sustained period of economic growth and the start of a period of considerable uncertainty about the
immediate prospects for the national and local economy. Several of the emerging trends were already flagged
up in the report on the 2002 census, but the data for the last four years of the Celtic Tiger period enable us to
distinguish those that continued and perhaps intensified, and those that weakened or indeed changed
direction. In addition, a number of new issues have emerged in the more recent period.
In terms of population distribution, the 2002-06 period witnessed a strengthening of the suburbanisation
trend already well established in the urban area. While the rate of population growth in suburban EDs
accelerated, the City reverted to population decline after the moderate growth of the late 1990s. Although the
net change over the decade to 2006 was still positive, the overall increase was small, and 23 out of 38 EDs in
fact lost population. Population decline continued to be particularly acute in some of the main areas of City
Council rented housing. Where population increase did occur, it tended to be associated with new private
housing and expansion of the young adult population, largely as a result of inward migration. There was a
particularly strong surge in immigration in this four year period, and as a consequence the number of foreign
nationals resident in the urban area almost doubled. By 2006 non-Irish nationals formed more than half of
the population in two city centre EDs, and as much as 70 per cent in one EA. Many of the recent immigrants
originated in eastern Europe, and Poles now constitute the largest non-Irish nationality in the urban area as a
whole.
Reflecting the strength of the suburbanisation trend, the focus of new house building shifted strongly back to
the suburbs between 2002 and 2006, as the apartment construction boom in the city centre came to an end.
The new suburban developments have been on greenfield sites, some of which are located on the periphery
of the built-up area, with others (for example in the area near the Groody river) representing a kind of in-fill
development on land that had been previously “leap-frogged” by development. The construction collapse of
2008 is prefigured in data that show that, even by 2006, housing supply had outstripped demand, resulting
in almost 5,500 vacant units throughout the urban area. Vacancy rates were particularly high in the city
centre, with more than half of the housing stock in one ED recorded as unoccupied.
Current problems in the area of unemployment are also foreshadowed in the 2006 census. Having fallen
sharply between 1996 and 2002, the unemployment rate in Limerick urban area increased marginally in the
subsequent four years. There were even more marked turnarounds at local level. For example, the
unemployment rate in the O’Malley Park area fell from 47 per cent in 1996 to 27 per cent in 2002, only to
increase again to 35 per cent in 2006. In general the most marked swings occurred in areas suffering high
levels of disadvantage, thereby further underlining the vulnerability of these areas. As the EA level analysis
makes abundantly clear, a number of unemployment blackspots persisted in 2006.
One of the interesting new trends that the analysis hints at is a shift in the spatial patterns of social class.
Within a general context of increasing professionalisation of the urban area’s population there is some
evidence of a movement up the social class scale in areas such as Garryowen and the southern part of King’s
Island. At the same time the numbers in the unskilled and semi-skilled classes decreased significantly in areas
of local authority housing and increased in the suburbs. It is possible that these trends are explained in part
by class mobility, i.e., changes in a person’s social class due to changes in his or her personal circumstances,
including employment and occupation. However, it seems more likely that they are linked to population
movements and, in particular, to the on-going shift in housing tenure towards private renting. One result is
that the degree of segregation of social classes decreased over the period 2002-06. In spite of this, as other
research currently underway in Mary Immaculate College shows, Limerick remains the most class segregated
of the medium-sized Irish cities.
Commuting patterns in Limerick and its hinterland region are very complex and more polycentric in character
than for the other cities. Traffic congestion was identified as a problem for the city in the 2002 profile also
prepared by Prof. McCafferty, and this seems to have worsened considerably in the later 2002-06 period, as
indicated by increasing travel times relative to travel distances. The reasons for this have to do with a modal
shift towards increased car usage and decreasing car occupancy rates for travel to work, school and college.
Car ownership rates increased significantly, particularly in areas where they had been low, with the result that
there was a degree of convergence in ownership across EDs.
Increased and more widespread car ownership is one result of the growth in prosperity up to 2006. However,
the Haase-Pratschke scale of affluence/ deprivation suggests that, in terms of the overall level of socio-
economic well-being, Limerick did not keep pace with the rest of the country. Rather, the urban area as a
whole slid down the scale somewhat, and whereas in 2002, 4 EDs of the 43 were classified as very affluent
relative to the national norm, by 2006 that had decreased to 2. Conversely the number of extremely
disadvantaged EDs increased over the four year period from 4 to 7.
Without doubt, a number of the trends summarised in brief above give cause for concern in relation to the
development of the city in the immediate future. Both demographically and economically, Limerick appears
to be underperforming. Without the injection of substantial numbers of immigrants, population would have
declined even more sharply in the City in general and the city centre in particular. Given that the migrant
population is heavily weighted towards the younger, economically active age groups, who were attracted to
Ireland by the employment opportunities created by a buoyant economy, the question that arises is whether it
will remain in the city in significant numbers as growth gives way to the recession. The fact that the migrant
population is relatively ‘footloose’ and mobile adds to these concerns, as does the relatively low degree of
residential integration with the indigenous population.
On the economic side the data analysed here suggest that the roots of the current downturn extend back into
the 2002-06 period, if not even earlier. The downward trend in unemployment had already given way to
increase by 2006, and the current situation is of course a good deal worse. While job losses have been
spread widely across the economy, they have been particularly severe in the construction sector, and, in the
case of Limerick, in manufacturing, due to the downsizing of the Dell factory in Raheen. The spatial analysis
detailed earlier allows us to identify areas where the impacts of these job losses are likely to be experienced
most severely. By and large they correspond to lower middle class and working class areas of the City. This in
turn raises concerns about increasing social polarisation, a phenomenon that has been linked in international
research to the loss of manufacturing employment in particular.
- The increase in the number of persons aged 65 years
and over – up 14%.
- The decline in the number of females in the child-

bearing cohorts 15 to 45 years.
- Falling male participation rates – down 7%.
- Increase in the number of persons unemployed – up

3.8%.
- The number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the

City – up 37%.
- Changes in the distribution of housing tenure types.
Demographic and Socio-economic Trends
A.7.4 Social imbalance is characterised and exacerbated by the trend,

prevailing since 1981, in key demographic and socio-economic
indicators.
A.7.5 Natural increase, the excess of births over deaths, fell from 14.9
persons per thousand of average population in 1981 to 4.1 in 1996 (see
Table 3).
A.7.6 The 42.6 per cent decline in the number of persons in the 0-14 year
age cohort will impact on teacher numbers, use of existing
educational infrastructure and the future number in the city labour
force (see Table 4).
A.7.7 The population structure of the City is ageing with the percentage
aged 65 years and over increasing from 9.1 per cent in 1981 to 14.34
per cent in 1996 (see again Table 4).
A.7.8 The total number at work declined by 8.5 per cent over the fifteen
years to 1996 although there was a welcome increase of 20% between
1996 and 2002. The number of males at work decreased by 7.0 per
cent while the number of females at work in the labour force
increased by 43 per cent (see Table 5).
A.7.9 The male participation rate, defined as the number in the labour force
expressed as a percentage of those aged 15 years and over, declined
from 73.4 to 66.0 per cent (see again Table 5).
A.7.10 The number of socially marginalised persons, defined as those

unemployed or seeking a first regular job increased by 9.1 and 3.8 per
cent respectively between 1981 and 2002.
24
A.7.11 The percentage of persons in the higher professional, lower
professional and self employed occupational categories in 1991 was
15.8 per cent in the City compared to 30.9 per cent in the proposed
boundary extension area. By 2002 the Borough had risen to 26% but
no corresponding data is available for the environs.
A.7.12 Semi-skilled and unskilled manual and non-manual workers

accounted for 29.8 per cent of the occupational structure in the City
compared to 18.0 per cent in the proposed boundary extension area
in 1991(see Table 6). However exact comparisons are not possible
with 2002 due to a change in categorization.
A.7.13. In the Mid West Region more than 175 ED’s lost population between
1996 and 2002 and the majority in number of these ED’s of these were
indeed rural. The total loss from these ED’s was 6,800 persons.
However, twenty six of these ED’s were in Limerick City and Ennis
and these 26 lost more than 3,250 persons or 48% of the total fall.
A.7.14 Out of a region total of 10,000 unemployed, 44% are located in the
core towns of Limerick/Ennis /Shannon.
A.7.15 In its various submissions to the Regional Authority prior to the

adoption of Regional Guidelines, Limerick City drew attention to
these issues of social imbalance.
“Limerick City Council recommends that brownfield development

and urban deprivation are recognised in the guidelines as issues to be
supported by general policies, both in the region and nationally. The
report (Regional Planning Guidelines) remains completely silent on
the issue of the regeneration of deprived areas.”
The views of the regional Authority, which represents a primarily

rural ethos was succinct;
“Since the principal areas in need of regeneration are located within

the city it is not clear what regional policies can achieve. However
amendments have been inserted to address the matter in the context
of the role of the city”.
The Regional Guidelines thus dismiss deprivation and regeneration as

matters of an entirely urban concern which is of little concern to the
Region as a whole, the only mention being as follows.
In addition the re-development of deprived and obsolete areas

particularly within the Limerick City area should be addressed
25
This underlines the deep-rooted rural bias repeated in the responses
and which is entirely at variance with EU policy as outlined above.
The City Council has consistently expressed the view that “strong
cities drive strong regions”. This view has been endorsed by
international experience but this view does not appear to be shared
by Limerick and Clare Counties who in their responses, see the City
as a revenue generator subsidising a vast rural hinterland. It is of
great concern to the City Council that these subsidy losses from the
urban area in turn means that the major social problems of the urban
core are left entirely to the City Council to be resourced from a
diminishing financial base.
Housing
A.7.16 Social housing is concentrated in the City area accounting for 31.3 per
cent of total housing stock in the city in 1991 compared to 8.0 per cent
in the proposed boundary extension area (see Table 7). Most of the
local authority housing in the proposed boundary extension area is
already provided by the City Council.
A.7.17 Owner occupied dwellings, with and without mortgages, accounted

for 56.7 per cent of the housing stock in the City compared to 77.2 per
cent in the proposed boundary extension area (see again Table 7).
A.7.18 The private rented sector, furnished and unfurnished, accounts for
10.0 per cent of city tenants compared to 13.4 per cent in the proposed
added area (see Table 8).
A.7.19 It is contended that an effective policy designed to meet the objectives

of a better social mix and spatial distribution of housing would be best
achieved by a single implementing housing and planning authority
(see Appendix 6 for a fuller statistical analysis of the key indicators set
out above).
A.7.20 In its response to the 1996 proposal, Limerick County Council stated
that “… the attainment of social balance is an issue which requires to
be addressed through an overall housing policy.” Despite these
sentiments, the County Council has since then rejected all proposals
for a joint housing policy in conflict with ministerial guidelines.
26
A.7.16
Social Housing within the Borough comprises 21% of all housing in 2006 having risen from 2002.
The following is an extract from “Aspects of socio-economic development in Limerick since 1970: Limerick’s
Troubled Estates: Residualised Public Sector Housing” by Prof. Des McCafferty.
While contemporary social problems in Limerick can be traced back to the spatially uneven impact of high
unemployment in the 1980s, a number of other factors have also contributed. In particular, aspects of
housing policy at the national level have, perversely, exacerbated problems of poverty and deprivation in
local authority estates.Foremost among these is the tenancy surrender grant scheme (1985-87) which was
introduced as an emergency measure to deal with a growing waiting list for public housing, at a time when (as
now) severe constraints on public expenditure had significantly reduced the public housing programme. In
order to increase the supply of public housing available for letting, the scheme offered a grant of IR£5,000
(€6,349) to households who surrendered their tenancy and moved into the private sector. In order to make
this move, households in most cases had to be able to secure mortgage finance, and so the scheme was most
attractive to higher income households in employment. As these households moved out of local authority
estates they were replaced by lower income families, so that the average income in the sector as a whole
decreased. Anecdotal evidence from many estates in Limerick at the time suggested that the households
moving out were also those most actively involved in community and voluntary activity, so that levels of
social capital also decreased.
The tendency for average incomes of households in the public rented sector to decrease relative to those of
households in the private sector has been interpreted in housing policy discourse as a process of
‘residualisation’ of the public sector. Some insights into the extent of public housing residualisation in
Limerick are available from a recent (2005) profile of City Council tenant households.
This found that in terms of the basic demographic attributes of sex and age, public sector renters formed
a highly distinctive population, with a much higher proportion of females, children, and adolescents, than the
population as a whole. In total, 56 per cent of the renting population was female, but this rises to 62 per cent
for heads of household. The youthful age profile was reflected in the fact that 36 per cent were aged less than
15 years of age, with 50 per cent aged under 25 years. The youth dependency ratio (the number of persons
aged under 15 years relative to those aged 15 to 64) was more than two and a half times greater than in
Limerick as a whole. Household composition was also significantly different. The most common type of
tenant household consisted of a single adult (lone parent) and children, which accounted for 33 per cent of
all households, and for 46 per cent of family-based households, precisely twice the rate for Limerick City and
suburbs.
With regard to labour market engagement, the activity rate for City Council tenants aged 15 years and over
(34 per cent) was significantly below that of the city as a whole (59 per cent), and the unemployment rate (53
per cent) was almost five times higher. Given the low levels of employment, it is not surprising that persons
aged 15 years and over were primarily dependent on social welfare payments as a source of income. In total,
welfare payments accounted for 83 per cent of all incomes. Reflecting the household composition, and in
particular the high rate of lone parent families, the single most important welfare payment was the one-parent
family payment, which constituted the main income source for 30 per cent of primary income recipients (i.e.,
those with the highest income in each household).
Social imbalances in the profile of tenant households were associated with particularly high rates of income
poverty risk. The report found that 80 per cent of individuals lived in households with incomes below the
poverty line, a rate of poverty risk almost four times the contemporaneous national rate. In general the rate of
poverty risk was somewhat greater for females than for males, with the gender gap widest among heads of
household, where the female rate was 82 per cent as opposed to 74 per cent for males. Rates of poverty risk
were inversely related to age, so that the highest rate (89 per cent) was for children. There were also
differences according to household composition. The highest rate of poverty risk occurred among individuals
in lone parent households, 90 per cent of whom had incomes below the specified poverty line.
While the socio-economic attributes described above clearly differentiate local authority rented housing from
other tenure categories, there is nevertheless significant variation within the tenure category, with differences
evident among estates in respect of age-sex profiles, unemployment rates and income levels. In general the
pattern that emerges is of more imbalanced age, sex and family structures on estates that are located further
from the city centre. Likewise, the highest rates of poverty risk tended to be in the more peripheral estates.
These include the area of Moyross formerly known as Glenagross Park, in which 94 per cent of the renting
population were at risk of poverty, and the Keyes Park / Carew Park area of Southill where the at-risk rate was
85 per cent. To some extent this geographical pattern corresponds with the age of the estate, less central
estates generally having been developed later. However, the highest overall rate of poverty risk (96 per cent)
was for part of the Ballinacurra Weston estate built in the 1950s.
A.8 ENFRANCHISEMENT
Population Overspill
A.8.1 The failure to bring the administrative boundary of the City broadly
in line with the physical spread of the city has meant that growth in
the population of the city has been accommodated on an increasing
scale in the county areas. This has the undesirable effect of removing
families and individuals with city roots from the city electorate and
from participation in the civic affairs of the area to which they are
primarily attached in terms of tradition, personal identity,
employment, social life and day to day activities.
A.8.2 The City and its built up areas form a social, economic, physically
integrated interdependent and expanding system. Population
resident within the limits of that system should have an input,
through their public representatives into policies and plans for the
system as a whole. As matters stand 37 per cent of the urban
population has no input into matters relevant to the City. Similarly
those resident within the City have no representation in matters and
issues arising in the extended area which affect them.
A.8.3 In its response, Limerick County rejects the need to align population
and representation – the very basis of democracy itself - stating that;
“While the City document argues for twelve new City Council
members, it says nothing about the effect on Limerick County
Councillors. Even if there is not a reduction in the number of
Councillors to Limerick County Council, there would be at the very
least significant changes in the electoral base of many Councillors and
in electoral area boundaries.”
A.8.4 According to the Local Government Act 2001, the first duty of a Local
Authority is;
“… to provide a forum for the democratic representation of the local

community, in accordance with section 64, and to provide civic
leadership for that community”
Within Limerick County the environs of Limerick City are divided

between the Bruff and Castleconnell areas thus diluting the urban
voice in local representation. In Clare the suburbs are part of the
Killaloe Electoral area. Nearly 50% of the population of the adjoining
County Local Electoral Areas is contained in the suburbs of Limerick.
The suburbs of Limerick which are primarily urban in character and
interest are thus denied access to the most relevant forum for
democratic representation and a voice in determining a future for
Limerick City. It is probably worth repeating here that the 2001 Act
defines a local community as;
27
“… persons ordinarily resident in the administrative area of the local
authority concerned and, where relevant as regards a function
of the authority, includes persons from outside that area who
regularly use facilities of a social, economic, recreational,
cultural or other nature provided by the authority”
A.8.5 Again, Limerick County Council asserts that there is ample

coordination of planning between City and County. It exemplifies this
coordination by reference to, inter alia, quarterly meetings between
officials.
“Co-ordination of planning and development issues within Limerick

City and its hinterland is further enhanced by the Mid West Senior
Planners Sub-Group and Directors Sub-Group who meet every
quarter to discuss strategic planning issues affecting the area.”
It is the contention of the City Council that such meetings are no

more than good administrative practice and common courtesy. The
key issue is that such meetings whose attendance is confined to
unelected officials and whose tranactions are not public, cannot
substitute for the transparency and accountability of democratically
elected unitary governance.
A.9 FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES
A.9.0 Local authority services in the City area and the environs beyond are
provided variously by Limerick City Council, Limerick County
Council and Clare County Council. In the case of a number of
services in the environs the provider is the City Council. This
diversity of provider has led to deficiencies as regards effectiveness
and convenience of provision by all three local authorities. The
deficiencies are summarised below.
A.9.1 WATER SUPPLY
A.9.1.1 Limerick City Council provides piped water to the environs in both
County areas, sold to the County Councils at less than commercial
value. There are bulk meters at the points of export and thereafter
the City Council has no control over the use of the water or the
condition of the network. This leads to difficulties that include -
- The City Council has no control over the amount of

water used or the leakage rate in the environs. This
shortcoming was not so problematical in the past when
the supply greatly exceeded the demand but now that
28
A.9.1.1 Water Supply
Limerick City Council's water treatment plant at Clareville has been upgraded to cater for its own predicted
demand over the next twenty years..
It will also provide for the predicted demand of Limerick County Council in the City environs and extended
areas west and south of the City
Similarly the upgraded supply will cater for the demands of Clare County Council in the City environs.
spare capacity is approaching the limit, the matter is of
growing importance.
- There are no formal arrangements for long term

planning or operational liaison between the three local
authorities.
- There is no consultation by the County Councils with

the City Council prior to the granting of planning
permission for major water users.
- There are no formal agreements as to what is required

by way of volume or pressure at the points of export.
The purchasing authorities simply draw off until a
problem arises.
- When the supply to the Limerick County environs has

to be shut off by the City Council, Limerick County
Council directs complaints to the City Council rather
than dealing with them directly. Consumers have
complained about a seeming lack of accountability.
- Maintenance and repairs of water networks in City

Council housing estates in the Limerick County area
have to be carried out by Limerick City Council.
A.9.2 FOUL DRAINAGE
A.9.2.1 With a few minor exceptions all of the proposed added area is within
the catchment of the Limerick Main Drainage Scheme now under way
(see Map 2 in Appendix 6). The City Council anticipates that,
difficulties in the matter of planning and control will arise similar to
those cited above in the case of water supply.
A.9.2.2 Maintenance and repairs of sewers in City Council housing estates in

the Limerick County area have to be carried out by Limerick City
Council.
A.9.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT
A.9.3.1 Limerick City Council and Limerick County Council are preparing a
joint Waste Management Strategy but Clare County Council is not
involved in that strategy. As a result the approach to waste
management in the urban area as a whole is disjointed.
29
A.9.2.1
Current restrictions in trans-boundary surface water drainage channels are hindering development and
investment and create a potential flood hazard in that part of the city environs drained by the Monaclino
stream and Groody River to the East of the City
Maintenance and repairs at Moyross have been resolved by partial boundary extension of 2008.
A.9.5.1
The two other emergency services (Gardai & HSE) operate on a regional / national basis. These agencies need
to communicate with all three fire authorities concerning any matter involving the emergency services in
Limerick City.
Major Emergency Management operates within one small boundary area.

A.9.4 POLLUTION CONTROL
A.9.4.1 Because the urban area is an entity and because noise, air and water
problems are no respecters of boundaries, it frequently occurs that a
source of difficulty or complaint lies in the adjoining local authority
area. This is inefficient from the standpoint of the "false alarm"
authority that responded to the incident and is inconvenient for the
complainant. Clare County Council has a particular difficulty in that
responding officials have to travel all the way from Ennis to carry out
inspections.
A.9.4.2 The difficulties described above are likely to increase as controls over
pollution become more comprehensive and more stringent. For
example, the statutory ban on bituminous solid fuels has been
extended to Limerick city and environs, effective as of 1 October 1998,
with three separate enforcement bodies for the overall urban area. In
that regard Limerick City Council is carrying out these functions for
Clare County Council.
A.9.5 FIRE SERVICE
A.9.5.1 On the operational aspects of the fire service the area served by
Limerick City Council extends well beyond the City boundary in all
directions, dictated by response times rather than by local authority
functional areas. The Limerick City Fire Service, in common with all
Fire Services, requires advance, up to date knowledge of all high risk
buildings and activities in its operational area. However, outside the
City the Limerick City Fire Service has no rights of inspection to gain
initial knowledge or to update information. That information, if it
exists at all in the public domain, is contained in the records of the two
County Councils and does not automatically come to the attention of
the City Fire Service. Protocol requires that when the City Fire
Service wishes to conduct inspections outside the City it must be
accompanied by representatives of the relevant County Fire Service.
A.9.5.2 The class of fire cover provided in an operational area is determined

by an assessment of the risks within that area. In the Limerick
situation it is preferable for suburban stations, currently at proposal
stage, to belong to the Limerick City Fire Service in that such stations
can "back feed" into city emergencies with the minimum of
administrative difficulties.
A.9.5.3 Limerick City Fire Service has no control over fire hydrants outside
the City boundary. The City Service operates from digitised maps
and removes from its maps any hydrant within the City that ceases to
function. That practice is not followed by the County Fire Services
with the result that the City Service can never be certain that its
information on hydrants in the environs is reliable.
A.9.5.4 On the safety and prevention side of things, although providing the
operational service for the environs, including high risk locations, the
30
City Fire Service has no input into control over the design and layout
of buildings and installations there. The City Service is not consulted
by either of the County Fire Services on such matters.
A.9.6 ROADS AND TRAFFIC
A.9.6.1 The administration of Limerick City and its environs by three

separate local authorities, acting as road authorities, is not conducive
to effective and convenient management of roads and traffic in the
greater Limerick area.
A.9.6.2 The specifications for road construction and maintenance differ

between the City and the County areas. The City applies a more
demanding form of construction and maintenance, which should also
prevail in many parts of the environs. For example, in County areas,
even in those quite close to the City, there is widespread use of
surface dressing, whereas the City Council would not consider such a
practice nowadays, due to the volume and type of traffic in urban
areas. It would be more effective, in the medium and long terms, if
Limerick City Council were able to apply urban standards of road
construction and maintenance in the environs which are experiencing
the same urban conditions as adjoining roads and streets within the
City.
A.9.6.3 Limerick City Council currently has to carry out road maintenance
and traffic management in City Council housing developments which
lie outside the City, in Limerick County Council's functional area.
These developments have not been taken in charge by Limerick
County Council, nor does it seem likely that they will be in the
foreseeable future. Consequently, Limerick City ratepayers are
funding a considerable amount of road and traffic maintenance in
areas which are outside the City.
A.9.6.4 In traffic management, there is a marked contrast between practices

in the City and the County areas of the environs. Speed limits in
some cases change suddenly on leaving the City, regardless of the
traffic conditions. Repeater signs are used to a large extent within the
City, and are not used in the County environs, - again regardless of
traffic conditions. Traffic calming measures on regional roads leading
out of the City stop at the City boundary. Traffic signals within the
City show a greater degree of versatility and sophistication in such
matters as vehicle actuation, programming and linking. It would be
more effective if Limerick City Council were to have more
widespread control of such matters in its County environs as well as
in the City. Limerick City Council has installed a system of Urban
Traffic Control. It is less effective since the system does not extend to
the adjoining suburbs in the County areas. Control should obviously
rest with one authority, which should be Limerick City Council.
A.9.6.5 Limerick City Council currently has to arrange for traffic

management in the adjoining County area in connection with major
31
A.9.6
The Proposed Northern Distributor Road

This important piece of infrastructure for Limerick City and the region will result in a significant reduction in
traffic congestion on all northern access routes to the city centre as well as significantly reducing the amount
of traffic crossing the three city centre bridges. The proposed route of the northern distributor road passes
through the administrative area of three local authorities along the northern fringes of the city between
Coonagh and Annacotty. Despite commitments in 2008 only Limerick City Council have progressed the
section between Coonagh and Knockalisheen. To date neither Clare or Limerick County Councils have
carried out work to confirm the route of the road and protect it from development. If the complete route was
within the administrative area of Limerick City Council this vital road infrastructure would be more advanced
due to its strategic importance to the city and the region in reducing congestion. This road will also open up
access to the north campus of UL and the land-banks around it that could be used to prioritise innovation
and job creation similar to the National Technology Park.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT BENEFITS

The long term planning of Limerick City’s roads & transport infrastructure over the next 30 years would be
best served by having it all controlled by one large urban authority focused on delivering a world class urban
transportation system. With Limerick City in charge of the city and its environs it would be much easier to
deliver a better integrated public transport system and build it up over the next few years by promoting
sustainable land use policies along key public transport corrridors. With proper planning and cordination of
our public transport systems and land-use policies, public transport corridors currently served by buses
could develop over the next number of years into Bus Rapid Transit Systems (BRT's) and eventually be
serviced by LUAS type Trams.
These type of policies would also benefit the provision of Park & Ride facilities and to promote their use
through creating disincentives to bringing cars into the city centre.
Road Maintenance
Road maintenance is disjointed between the authorities at present. Limerick City promotes the use of surface
overlays and quality line marking suitable for urban locations whereas the county councils tend to use road
surfacing materials such as surface dressing and road lining more suited to rural settings. A good example of
this would be the work recently carried out at Athlunkard Bridge. A serious road safety issue existed in
relation to school children from housing estates in County Clare crossing the bridge to go to school in
Limerick City. Despite many requests Clare County Council failed to carry out improvement works on the
bridge to improve pedestrian safety. Limerick City Council then carried out the improvement works after
requests from parents and councillors in both authorities.
TRAFFIC
Specifically in terms of traffic management a boundary extension offers an opportunity to improve the City
and environs traffic planning procedures and to utilise the City’s traffic control tools and statistics.
One overarching traffic management strategy can bring better conditions and proven solutions to the issues
of suburban arterial route congestion and event management.
The City’s traffic control centre can be utilised to expand public transport priority on the suburban network
and offer improvements to pedestrian management, parking guidance and park and ride. In addition the
City’s C.C.T.V. traffic monitoring system can be extended in a cost effective manner to suburban areas.
The expansion of the City’s U.T.C. system would extend and improve data collection to suburban areas and
provide improved methods of system maintenance including connections, and networks for regional bus
management systems.
public events or construction work within the City. While co-
operation in most such cases is readily provided, the City Council has
no direct control over arrangements within the County areas,
especially when unexpected changes occur.
A.9.6.6 Limerick City Council has no control over large developments,

particularly housing in the County area which can have significant
effects on traffic into and out of the City. Some of the traffic
problems arising would be lessened if the City Council had more
control over the planning of such developments.
A.9.6.7 Limerick City Council has no input into the design and road layout of
major estates being built in the environs.
A.9.7 HOUSING
A.9.7.1 The City Council house building programme was reviewed on five
occasions since the passing of the Housing Act, 1966. The rate of
construction between 1985 and 1994 averages about 50 houses per
annum. During the five years, 1990 to 1995, Limerick City Council
recorded 218 new starts under the Housing Programme. This
involved the construction of small parcels of housing development
together with the acquisition of second hand housing in both public
and private estates. An assessment of the housing waiting list in
March 1996 showed an active waiting list of 666 persons.
A.9.7.2 The City Council provided 433 tenant purchase houses at Delmege
Park, Pineview Gardens and Craeval Park, Moyross in the functional
area of Limerick County Council. Limerick City Council is
empowered under section 59 of the Local Government Act, 1955 to
make housing loans to tenant purchasers wishing to acquire a
dwelling house located in the county area. It was agreed under the
provision of the 1955 Act that it would "be more convenient that the
power, function or duty of making housing loans to tenant
purchasers" be exercised by the City Council.
A.9.7.3 Social housing is also provided by the City Council in the County area
under the 1966 Housing Act. Apart from two halting sites no social
housing has been provided by Limerick County Council in the
suburbs of Limerick. The City Council considers that in terms of
estate management it is neither convenient nor effective that the
provision of social housing be divorced from its servicing. This can
and does lead to disparity of services between estates.
A.9.7.4 The major concern of the City Council is the relative scarcity of
housing land within the City boundary. A boundary extension by
increasing the amount and spread of developable housing land would
facilitate a balanced approach to the disposition of local authority and
private housing estates thus avoiding the creation of enclaves and
achieving better social mix.
32
A.9.8 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND PLAYING FIELDS
A.9.8.1 There is a discontinuity between the three local authority areas as

regards the provision of open space, parks and playing fields. The
City Council is alone in having a plan for open space and related
matters. Clare County Council provides no open space in its
environs area and carries out no tree planting there. Ongoing
maintenance, including grass-cutting of Open Spaces is conducted by
residents. The open space provided in the environs by Limerick
County Council contains no playing pitches. The use of City Council-
owned pitches is open to all, regardless of place of origin and the rates
charged are subsidised by the City Council.
A.9.8.2 Limerick City Council carries out the maintenance of open space in
City Council-owned housing estates in Limerick County,
notwithstanding that the open spaces are nominally in the charge of
the County Council. Riverside walks within the City stop abruptly at
the boundary and the aim of the City Council to effect a cycleway
between the city centre and the University campus has been met with
seeming disinterest by Limerick County Council.
A.9.9 OTHER RECREATION
A.9.9.1 The City Council operates a swimming pool and leisure centre at
Grove Island Both facilities are heavily patronized by persons from
outside the City, including use by groups in reserved sessions. Such
groups that are based outside the City have no influence on the
degree of priority accorded to their requirements.
A.9.10 MUSEUMS AND LIBRARIES
A.9.10.1 Limerick City Council runs the City Museum and the City Gallery of
Art, both of which are patronized by residents of the city environs.
The City Council has a headquarters library in the city centre and a
branch library at Roxboro, and a second branch at Moyross. Limerick
County Council has a recently opened a branch library at Dooradoyle
and a part-time branch at Caherdavin. The County Council also
operates two mobile libraries for the whole of the County. Clare
County Council does not provide a mobile library, the nearest branch
library being in Killaloe. The City Council understands that there is a
proposal for a branch library at Parteen but has no details thereof.
Some 20 per cent of City library members are from County Limerick
with around 8 per cent from County Clare.
A.9.10.2 There are no formal arrangements for co-operation between the

three local authorities, and the three library services operate
independent policies and purchasing of stock resulting in some
duplication of stock. The computer systems operated by the library
services are different and there is no online linkage between them.
33
A.9.10.1
Limerick City has taken over the former County Council branch library at Caherdavin with the partial
boundary extension in 2008. A new County Council library headquarters has been established in
Dooradoyle. Clare County Council has a branch library in Sixmilebridge.
A.9.10.2
Following the creation of the Watchouse Cross Branch Library and the partial boundary extension of 2008,
the following are the usage statistics. Seventy-six percent of members now come from Limerick City. Eleven
percent are from Limerick County and the remainder are from either Clare or Tipperary.
There is significant potential to enhance service to the public by means of an on-line link between the
services offered by the City and the adjoining counties both in loans and in staff-time that must be spent on
cataloging.
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
h
A.10 FINANCIAL MATTERS
A.10.1 The proposed extension of the boundary will ensure that revenues
raised within the city and the proposed boundary extension area will
be dedicated to the functions and services of the extended city only
and not used, in part, as a vehicle for the cross-subsidisation of
policies extraneous to that area.
34
SECTION B : PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT AREA
B.1 EXISTING BOUNDARIES
B.1.1 The existing boundaries of Limerick City, Limerick County and Clare
County are shown in Map 1 in Appendix 7.
B.2 PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT AREA
B.2.1 The proposed boundary for the extended City is shown in Map 1 in
Appendix 7.
B.2.2 The proposed extension comprises a total of 4,830 hectares in County

Limerick and 1,621 hectares in County Clare. These additional 6,451
hectares combined with the existing 2,086 hectares of Limerick City
would give an enlarged City of 8,537 hectares. Further information
on the extended area, including the composite townlands, is given in
Appendix 7.
35
B.2.2
In 2008, the boundary of Limerick City was extended by the incorporation of Limerick
North Rural ED into the City of Limerick. In the original proposal, the riverside
boundary of this ED was confined to the High Water Mark on the River Shannon. It did
not extend to the centre of the river as does the ED boundary. The area of North Rural
proposed to be added was therefore 2,272.2 Ha. Since the whole of the ED has been
added, the areas of the proposed added area must now be adjusted.
Place Area in 2005 Application Area Post-2008 Extension

Clare 1,621.0 1,621.0
Limerick North Rural (Land
2,272.2 0.0
Only)
Rest of Limerick (Land
2,257.8 2,257.8
+Water)
Total Limerick County 4,830.0 2,257.8
Limerick City 2,086.0 4358.2
Water (in existing +
349 411.51*
extended area)
* The original 2006 proposal excluded water from part of Limerick North Rural ED.
However the 2008 extension included all adjoining water in the river Shannon.
C.2.1
The downward trend in population has continued from 2002 to 2006 with the population falling from
54,058 to 52,539, roughly comparable with the position in 1991.
C.2.2
Between 2002 and 2006 the population of the Borough declined by 2.8% while the populations of the state,
the region and the adjoining counties increased by between 6.3% and 8.4%
C.2.3
The population of the proposed added area has increased by 845% between 1950 and 2006 and is
estimated to have grown only 3.4% between 2002 and 2006. However this reduced rate of growth contrasts
with the 34% growth experienced in the six years 1996 to 2002. Almost a tenfold fall in the rate of growth.
C.2.4
In 2006, the Aggregate Town area of Limerick County had risen to 43,074, of which the City Environs
accounted for 34,197 persons. The Aggregate Town area of Clare had risen to 43,391 with 4,021 in the
suburbs of Limerick. The City suburbs therefore accounted for a smaller fraction of the aggregate town
population of Limerick in 2006 - only 79.3% as opposed to 94.6%. Likewise the Clare fraction has fallen
back to only 9.2% of the aggregate urban area population in Clare. It is clear therefore that urban growth in
the counties is now far more widespread than hitherto.
SECTION C : SOCIO-ECONOMIC MATTERS
C.1 INTRODUCTION
C.1.1 This section examines socio-economic matters and sets out for the
extended area information on population, the area in hectares and data
on the number of households. Information on rateable valuations and
the number of commercial premises is also set out together with
details of the estimated annual income generated from commercial
rates, charges for services and other sources. This information is
provided for the extended area in aggregate and is also detailed for the
two adjoining local authority areas.
C.2 POPULATION
C.2.1 Between 1951, approximately the date of the last boundary extension,
and 1981 the population of Limerick City increased by 0.59 per cent
per annum rising from 50,828 persons in 1951 to 60,736 persons in
1981. Over the subsequent fifteen years to 1996 the population of the
City declined by 1.02 per cent per annum falling from 60,736 persons
in 1981 to 52,039 in 1996. The net effect of population growth and
decline over the forty five years from 1951 to 1996 was an increase of
1,211 persons, 2.38 per cent, in the population of Limerick City (see
again Table 1). Between 1996 and 2002 the population of the City rose
slightly to 54,058 persons – an increase of 3.8%. Overall in the 51 years
since 1951 an increase of 6.3% was recorded in the City population.
C.2.2 In sharp contrast the populations of the State and the Mid-West Region
increased by 32.3 and 21.4 per cent respectively over the same period.
Similarly the populations in Counties Clare and Limerick increased by
26.9 and 34.1 per cent respectively (see again Table 1).
C.2.3 Between 1951 and 2002, the population in the proposed added area
increased by 814 per cent rising from 4,294 to 30,215 persons
compared to a 6.35 per cent increase in the City. During the period
1981 to 1996 when population was declining in the City, the population
of the proposed added area increased by an average of 4.54 per cent
per annum rising from 15,554 to 30,215 persons (see again Table 1).
Over the same period population declined by 1.02 per cent per annum
in the City.
C.2.4 In 1996 23,690 persons, 82.1 per cent of the aggregate town population
of County Limerick resided in the suburbs of Limerick as defined by
the CSO. In County Clare 2,780 persons, 7.5 per cent of the aggregate
town population, resided in the suburbs of Limerick. By 2002, the
Limerick County figure had risen to 34,824 and the Clare figure to
5,704 and the relevant percentages based on these figures are
estimated to have risen to 94.6% and 15% respectively.
36
FUTURE TRENDS
C.2.5 Projection of trends in the City population is as set out in the 2004
Development Plan. The size of the future population of Limerick will
be determined by three major life trends.
How many will be born?

How many will die?
How many will move in or out of Limerick City?
This simplified picture is complicated by the artificially tight

administrative boundary of Limerick City Council, which means that
the majority of new growth occurs in the suburbs in Limerick County
and Clare County.
Of the major life trends the following assumptions are relevant. The
birthrate, which had steadily declined since the 1960s reversed this
trend in recent years and demonstrated a six per cent per annum
increase during the period 1996-2002. It is not certain that this trend
will be sustained and therefore an initial continuation followed by a
resumption of decline is assumed over a 20-year period. The impact of
a continuation would have a marginal impact on work force housing
numbers although the impact on school numbers would be significant
- almost as significant as an increase in the numbers migrating into
Limerick city and its extended area.
Life expectancy improved dramatically in the 1980s and again

improved marginally during the 1990s. It is probable that life
expectancy will continue to improve and the principal effect is that
there will be almost a doubling of the population aged 65 and over in
Limerick City and its extended area and an increase of about one third
in the City.
Migration, because it is concentrated in the middle age groups has a

very significant effect on the demands arising from population change.
Out-migration tends to concentrate in the 15 to 25 age groups while in-
migration, although it concentrates in the 35-45 age cohorts, also
influences significantly the 0-9 cohorts because of associated young
families. Migration therefore affects demand for housing, jobs and
school places. In-migration is most often a side effect of economic
prosperity resulting from job creation.
We may therefore consider two principal scenarios for Limerick City

and its extended area;
Scenario one: we could presume that only the natural growth of

Limerick City and its extended area population is to be
accommodated.
37
C.2.5
In January of 2009 the DEHLG published a set of population targets for each region in
Ireland. In July 2009, the DEHLG published specific population targets for the Gateway
of Limerick/Shannon and the Hub of Ennis. The intent of these targets is to ensure that
the Gateway and Hub are accorded a priority and it is proposed that they grow at a
proportionally faster rate than the region as a whole. According to the DEHLG:-
“The Department fully accepts that economic development and investment strategies at
national, regional and local levels are therefore critical in supporting the growth of the
Gateways and Hubs. While it is difficult to make accurate projections in relation to
economic and employment growth at a Gateway and Hub level, the planning system
must play its role in ensuring that future development needs are planned for in a
strategic, plan-led, infrastructure delivery friendly and co-ordinated manner, hence the
role of regional planning guidelines ... Regional Authorities must incorporate the
population targets for Gateways and Hubs in this note into the new RPGs, in line with
the approach recommended”
In the case of the Limerick Gateway the DEHLG target shows a proposed minimum
growth of 32,000 persons to 2022. Additionally the DEHLG requires that a minimum of
70% of this target be located within the area of Limerick City. The following table sets
out the local distribution of the DEHLG Target Populations.
Place 2006 2016 2022

Limerick City 59,790 77,642 86,990
Gateway (Incl
99,979 113,746 126,256
Shannon)
(Excl Shannon) 91,498 107,352 121,767
Suburbs of
31,708 36,104 39,266
Limerick
While the population targets directed by the DEHLG and incorporated in the Draft
Regional Guidelines have subsequently incorporated in the Draft City Development
Plans, there is little indication how these targets can be realized. If the City population is
to grow to 86,990 in the sixteen years from 2006 to 2022 then at least 15,886 houses
would have to be built within the boundary. This is a rate of construction of about 1,000
houses per annum. From 2006 to 2009 the rate of construction has been less than 400
per annum with only 93 dwellings completed in 2009. At an average density of 35
dwellings per Ha. this would require 453 Ha. but at present the total area zoned
residential and available for development within the boundary is only 172 Ha.
Scenario two: on the other hand if we could presume that the rate of
job creation which prevailed during the 1996 to 2002 period would
continue, leading to in-migration and higher growth.
The future population of the City is essentially determined by the

number of houses contained within the City and by the average
number of persons inhabiting each house. The number of houses
available within the City is reduced by demolition and change of use
and is increased by new construction. Sufficient land remains for a
maximum of 3,500 dwellings and about one per cent of the total stock
is lost every year to demolition. The convergence of these trends
implies that the total number of houses within the City is unlikely to
rise much above 20,000 or 21,000 over the coming 20 years. If average
total size continues to decline, as it has done throughout the twentieth
century (to say 2.7 or 2.8 persons per household), then the population
of the City is unlikely to rise much above present level and could even
decline.
In summary then, over the coming twenty years, Limerick City and its
extended area will experience a population growth of between 21,000
and 29,000. There will be a requirement to provide between 8,000 and
13,000 new jobs. At least 10,000 and as many as 14,000 new houses will
require to be built to keep pace with population growth and a further
6,000 will be needed to replace demolitions. School numbers will at
very least flatten out but may grow by 5,000. The number of persons
over the age of 65 will double from 8,000 to 16,000. Within the City the
population will probably stabilize but may grow. The number aged 65
and over will grow by about one-third. The number of households will
grow by about 3,000. Primary school numbers will increase somewhat
although secondary school numbers will stabilize.
FUTURE POPULATION OF THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY

EXTENSION AREA
C.2.6 The population of the added area is likely to lie somewhere between
54,000 and 67,000 by 2022. This could be an underestimate and the
added area could be required to accommodate a population of up to
67,000 most probably exceeding that of the current City. Apart from
demographic factors such as fertility and net migration, both now on
the increase, the extent to which population levels in the proposed
added area will grow will also be influenced by the success of policies
aimed to promote balanced urban and rural development within the
wider region.
38
C.3 THE SUBJECT AREA
The Townland Unit
C.3.1 The townlands in the proposed boundary extension are situated in 9

District Electoral Divisions (DEDs), five in County Limerick and 4 in
County Clare. The Limerick DEDs include Ballycummin, Ballysimon,
Ballyvarra, Limerick North Rural and Limerick South Rural. The DEDs
in Clare are Ballycommon, Ballyglass, Capavilla and Kilealy. The
townlands in each of the DEDs are set out in Table 9. It is proposed to
include the whole of each townland with the exception of Ballykeelaun
in Ballyglass DED (see again Table 9).
Advisory Expert Committee
C.3.2 In proposing the integration of whole townlands within the proposed

added area regard is had to the basic principle (para 5.2.3) stated by the
Advisory Expert Committee on Local Government Reorganisation
and Reform 1991 that "urban centres should not be divided by county
boundaries with part of the same urban area under the jurisdiction of a
different county authority". An exception is made in the case of
Ballykeelaun townland in order to minimise the impact on the rates
revenue of County Clare.
C.3.3 The Expert Report recommends (para. 5.2.3) that immediate

consideration be given to extending the boundary of Limerick City to
take in part of County Limerick as specified in Appendix III of the
Report. While townlands in Clare are not included in the said
Appendix III, it is clear that the basic principle of single jurisdiction
applies in that townlands in Ballyglas DED lie within the Limerick
suburbs as defined by the CSO. The inclusion of townlands not yet
within the defined suburbs is to ensure the proper planning and
development of the area in the future with the objective of ensuring
adequate land resources for the accommodation of future population
overspill from Limerick City and indigenous population growth within
the proposed added area.
39
Recent Extensions
C.3.4 Since the 1991 Act was commenced a number of boundary extensions
have been granted, including for example the following:
Area Pre Area Post % Increase Population

Extension Extension In Area 2002
(in Ha) (in Ha)
Killarney 1,169 1,534 31.22 12,087
Castlebar 393 1,099 179.64 10,287
Ballina 433 1,451 235.10 9,478
Westport 813 821 0.98 5,314
The above extensions were granted in 2000, 2001 and later to extend
urban administrative areas to encompass the suburbs of growing
towns. These clearly demonstrate;
• That the extending of administrative boundaries is required in urban

areas in order to achieve effective and convenient Local Government.
• That notwithstanding the passage of the Local Government Act of
2001, the extensions were granted under the Act of 1991.
• That the town of Killarney with a population of 12,087 persons
encompasses an area 73% the size of the current Limerick City.
• That the town of Ballina with a population of 9,478 persons
encompasses an area 69% the size of the current Limerick City.
Extension Area
C.3.5 The area of the proposed boundary extension is 6,451 hectares (15,943
acres). This comprises 4,830 hectares (11,937 acres) within County
Limerick and 1,621 hectares (4,006 acres) in County Clare. The
combined area of the City and the boundary extension area is 8,538
hectares (21,101 acres) (see Table 11).
C.3.6 In addition to those townlands within the suburbs of Limerick the

proposed boundary extension includes the villages of Annacotty,
Mungret and Parteen. Annacotty and Mungret are within the
environs of Limerick City as defined in the County Limerick
Development Plan and are zoned for urban uses. Parteen is not the
subject of a zoning objective in the Clare County Development Plan.
The inclusion of these villages is critical to orderly planning and
development since they form the central nuclei around which future
suburban neighbourhoods will be developed.
Conclusion
C.3.7 Limerick County Development Plan recognises the nature and degree
of development pressures on Limerick environs. It is submitted that
the intensity of these pressures demands a holistic/integrated
approach to the problems and potential of Limerick City and its
environs. This will prove a more logical, efficient and effective
approach than one which is sequential and separate, however well co-
ordinated.
40
C.4 RATEABLE VALUATION
C.4.1 Information on the rateable valuation in the proposed added area is

based on figures supplied by Limerick and Clare County Councils. The
details are set out in Table 12.
C.5 NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES
C.5.1 The number of commercial premises in the City Council area is 3,239.
It is estimated that there are 798 commercial premises in the proposed
boundary extension area of County Limerick. The 1997 Clare
response indicates the commercial valuation base in 1996 comprised 32
premises. This is estimated to have risen to 38 in 2004.
C.6 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
C.6.1 There were 16,970 private households in the City in 1996 and an
estimated 8,920 in the proposed boundary extension area. By 2002 the
total households within the City had risen to 18,945 and the number of
households in the extension area is estimated to have risen to 12,319. A
check on the numbers of houses declared by the DOEHLG to have
been constructed in the City between 1996 and 2002, revealed that
misreporting had mistakenly placed 4,000 extra within the City
boundary. The misreporting stems from the fact that the average
citizen cannot believe that the City boundary is so small. Average
household size ranged from 2.94 in the City to 3.32 persons in the
proposed added area in 1996. The latter estimate, 3.32 persons, is
based on the average size of households in County Limerick and as
such is most likely an underestimate. Taken together, average
household size in the extended city area is 3.18 persons per household.
This compares with a total 23,094 households in 1991 with an average
household size of 3.40 persons. By 2002, average household size in the
City had fallen to 2.7 persons and in Limerick County had fallen to 2.9
persons. In Clare the average had fallen to 2.9 persons also. Current
population estimates for the proposed extended area are based on the
Addresspoint data and so averages may be somewhat misleading.
C.6.2 In order to facilitate a population projection the area base is defined to

include Limerick City and the DEDs of Limerick North Rural, Limerick
South Rural, Ballycummin, Ballysimon and Ballyglass. Future
household size in the proposed extended city is based on extrapolation
of the recent trend in household size.
C.6.3 It is estimated that the number of households in the city and proposed
boundary extension area will rise from 31,047 in 2002 to between
41,000 and 45,000 in the year 2022, a maximum increase of over 14,000
households (see Table 14).
41
C.4.1 RATEABLE VALUATION:
Information on the rateable valuation in the proposed added area is based on figures supplied by Limerick
County Council for 2009 rateable period. Up to date rateable valuation details were requested from Clare
County Council but the request remains unfilled. For Clare County Council, the proportion of the rateable
valuation is based on the 2004 as adjusted by the percentage increase in Clare County Council’s overall
rateable valuation for the period 2004-2009. The details of rateable valuations in the proposed added area
are set out in Table 12.
C.5 NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES:
The number of commercial premises in the City Council area for 2010 is 3,363. Details were not made
available from Limerick County Council or Clare County Council to identify the number of commercial
premises for the period 2009/2010. It is likely the numbers presented in 2005 submission have significantly
increased over this period to the current day, as it was the peak period of the “building boom”.
C.6.1
By 2006 the number of households in the City had grown to 19,500 and an estimate prepared using
Geodirectory indicated that there were as many as 13,400 in the proposed extended area excluding
Caherdavin which was added to the City in 2008.
Average Household size in the proposed added area is approximately 3.06 compared with 2.68 within the
City.
Future populations and households are based on the DEHLG Regional population targets which are required
to be assigned in specific proportions to the Gateway and to Limerick City proper by direction of the DEHLG.
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
C.7 ANNUAL INCOME
C.7.1 The effect on the Annual Income of Limerick City Council is set out in
section D.
42
SECTION D: ESTIMATED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
FOR PROPOSER
D.1 METHODOLOGY
D.1.1 The current proposal for the extension of the City Council boundary is
prepared on information from the 2004 Annual Budget for Limerick
City Council.
D.1.2 Estimates have been made of the likely changes to City Council
income and expenditure (other than capital expenditure) which would
arise immediately as a result of the boundary adjustment. These
changes have been worked through on a programme by programme
basis.
D.1.3 The rate income arising from the added area has been estimated by
obtaining directly from the County authorities the rateable valuations
within the added area.
D.1.4 The data on income and expenditure, from all sources, has been used
to amend the 2004 Annual Budget in order to assess the immediate
financial impact of the proposed boundary adjustment. The effect on
the proposer was assessed by Limerick City Council in October 2004.
Limerick City Council is satisfied that the basis used to assess the
impact remains valid. The only adjustment to the original proposal has
been to take account of additional rates income notified by Limerick
County Council. An assessment is made in Section E of the estimated
extent to which the income and expenditure of the counties in the
added area are affected. This assessment has taken account of the
response.
D.1.5 It is assumed that capital balances relating to infrastructure in the

extended area have been fully funded by the relevant Local
Authorities either through government grants, development levies or
loans. In the event that an asset has been financed by loan then
consideration will be given to taking on such loans where the asset is
also taken on by the City Council. In no circumstance can
consideration be given to funding historical spend that has already
been funded.
D.1.6 It is assumed that staff will transfer from Limerick County Council to
Limerick City Council. It is assumed that no staff will transfer from
Clare County Council to Limerick City Council.
D.1.7 The Needs and Resources Model is used by the Department of

Environment, Heritage and Local Government to distribute general
purpose grants from the Local Government Fund amongst the 88
Local Authorities in Ireland. In assessing the needs of Local Authorities
the model uses target values to assess the amount of money required
43
D.1 METHODOLOGY
D.1.1 The current proposal for the extension of the City Council boundary is prepared on information
from the 2010 Annual Budget for Limerick City Council, Limerick County Council and Clare County Council.
D.1.2 Estimates have been made of the likely changes to City Council income and expenditure (other
than capital expenditure) which would arise immediately as a result of the boundary adjustment. These
changes have been worked through on a Division by Division basis (Divisions were previously known as
Programme Groups).
D.1.3 The rate income arising from the added area has been calculated by the methodology as outlined
in section C.4.1 (as revised) above.
D.1.4 The data on income and expenditure, from all sources, has been used to amend the 2010 Annual
Budget in order to assess the immediate financial impact of the proposed boundary adjustment. Limerick City
Council is satisfied that the basis used to assess the impact is valid. The assessment in Section E of the
estimated extent to which the income and expenditure of the counties in the added area are affected is based
on the figures as per the 2005 submissions by Limerick County Council and Clare County Council. It’s not
possible to update Section E for this current submission to Limerick Local Government Committee without
seeing updated replies from Limerick County Council and Clare County Council.
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
to provide a service by a particular Local Authority. These target
values are considered “best practice” in the provision of Local
Authority services and where appropriate they have been used to
assess the expenditure that will be required to provide the service in
the added area.
Limerick County Council and Clare County Council have

demonstrated that they are not spending the amounts of money that
this proposal indicates for the added area. It is Limerick City Council’s
view that this further proves the need for the boundary extension as it
establishes that there is under investment in the provision of services
in the added area by the two Local Authorities and that they are not
providing services in line with best practice guidelines indicated by the
Needs and Resources Model.
D.1.8 Local Government Fund
A review of the Needs and Resources Model by the DOEHLG

concluded that the model has the potential to allocate the Local
Government Fund in a manner that accords with the principles of
equity and fairness, can meet relevant priorities and that it fairly
reflects needs and resources.
The allocation of the Local Government Fund is a matter for the
DOEHLG. This proposal demonstrates that Limerick City Council will
incur an increase in net expenditure to provide services in the added
area. It is assumed in this proposal that Limerick County Council and
Clare County Council would still receive their minimum allocation
following the proposed extension. The allocation from the Needs and
Resources Model will be based on the needs and resources of each
Local Authority following the proposed extension and no attempt has
been made to estimate the likely impact of the proposed extension on
this allocation.
It is expected that the net increase in expenditure will be reflected in

the allocations from the Needs and Resources Model, however, this
has not been reflected in this proposal. This proposal assumes that
there will be no additional cost to the Local Government Fund.
It has been assumed that any amendment in allocation that may result
from the extension would be arrived at in an equitable and fair
manner and therefore the effect of such an amendment on Limerick
County or Clare County is not relevant in this proposal.
44
D.2 INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP –
EFFECT ON PROPOSER
D.2.1 Table 16 sets out the financial implications for Limerick City Council's
income and expenditure in each programme group following a
boundary extension.
It is estimated that total income from all programmes (excluding

commercial rates and Local Government Fund) would fall from
!30,795,268 to !29,750,977, a decrease of 3% or !1,044,291.
Expenditure is expected to increase by 14%, rising from !63,585,285 to

!72,296,378. The net effect on income and expenditure of Limerick
City Council is summarized in the following table:
Increase / Net Increase

Increase in (Decrease) in In
Expenditure Income Expenditure
! ! !
Housing & Building 765,947 621,822 144,125
Road Transportation & Safety 1,147,746 38,600 1,109,146
Wa ter Supply & Sewerage 995,569 -713,666 1,709,235
Development Incentives & Control 274,645 59,338 215,307
Environmenta l Protection 2,263,005 -1,669,000 3,932,005
Recreation & Amenities 1,374,205 0 1,374,205
Agriculture, Education etc. 637,065 618,615 18,450
Miscellaneous Services 1,252,912 0 1,252,912
Tota l 8,711,093 -1,044,291 9,755,384
Additional Rates Income in Year 1
to Limerick City Council -9,393,477
Net Additional Expenditure for
Limerick City Council if area
extended 361,907
The following is a breakdown by programme group of these

increases:
Housing and Building
D.2.2 Limerick City Council expenditure in 2004 in the Housing and Building
Programme is estimated at !10,928,622.
Approximately 64% of total Housing and Building Programme

expenditure relates to Local Authority Housing and Assistance to
Persons Housing Themselves. In the case of local authority housing it
is assumed that where houses have been provided in the extended
area that these houses will continue to be maintained by the Local
Authority that provided them.
Additional housing estate management costs are assumed for the area
of Moyross that is in the extended area. There are 433 local authority
houses in the extended area. The Needs and Resources Model sets a
45
D.2 INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY DIVISION – EFFECT ON PROPOSER
D.2.1 Table 16 sets out the financial implications for Limerick City Council's
income and expenditure in each Division following a boundary
extension.
It is estimated that total income from all Divisions (excluding

commercial rates and Local Government Fund) would fall from
€30,795,268 to €29,750,977, a decrease of 3% or €1,044,291.
Expenditure is expected to increase by 14%, rising from €63,585,285

to €72,296,378. The net effect on income and expenditure of
Limerick City Council is summarized in the following table:
Increase /
Increase in (Decrease) in Net Increase
Expenditure Income In Expenditure
€ € €
Housing & Building 1,571,226 1,299,117 272,109
Road Transport & Safety 4,360,343 2,517,097 1,843,246
Water Services 3,062,754 3,062,754 0
Development Management 1,142,864 317,142 825,722
Environmental Services 1,559,879 -1,022,641 2,582,520
Recreation & Amenity 1,245,706 69,738 1,175,967
Agriculture, Education etc. 4,268,384 3,927,562 340,822
Miscellaneous Services 3,526,658 776,173 2,750,485
Total 20,737,814 10,946,943 9,790,871
Additional Rates Income in Year 1 to
Limerick City Council -11,973,003
Net Gain for Limerick City Council if
area extended (Table 27) -2,182,132
The following is a breakdown by Division of these increases:

Housing and Building
D.2.2 Limerick City Council expenditure in 2010 in the Housing and Building Division is estimated at
€16,277,881.
Approximately 77% of total Housing and Building Division expenditure relates to Local Authority Housing,
Administration of the Homeless Service and the RAS programme. In the case of local authority housing it is
assumed that where houses have been provided in the extended area that these houses will continue to be
maintained by the Local Authority that provided them.
RAS – This scheme caters for the needs of persons in receipt of rent supplement for 18 months or longer and
who have a long term housing need. The aim of the scheme is to provide good quality rented
accommodation with security of tenure. The scheme is fully recouped from the DoEHLG. A contra amount of
€794,950 has been included in the proposal.
In the case of Housing Loans, any increase in expenditure as a result of an increased number of housing
loans being issued, is matched by a corresponding increase in income. An increased amount of €369,261 is
allowed in expenditure and income for this, based on a 68% increase (the projected increase in population
after the boundary extension) to existing loan charges estimate of €748,956.
The halting site at Castletroy is in the proposed area. Expenditure has been increased by €66,726 to cover
additional maintenance costs.
Overall Expenditure and Income has increased by €1,571,226 and €1,299,117 respectively in this
Programme Group. The net increase in expenditure is €272,109.
target expenditure on housing estate management of !125 per
dwelling giving additional expenditure of !54,125.
In the case of Assistance to Persons Housing Themselves, any increase

in expenditure as a result of an increased number of housing loans
being issued, is matched by a corresponding increase in income. An
increased amount of !621,822 is allowed in expenditure and income
for this, based on a 73% increase (the projected increase in population
after the boundary extension) to existing loan charges estimate of
!856,136.
Two halting sites at Castletroy and Lansdowne Bridge are in the

proposed area. Net expenditure has been increased by !90,000 to
cover an additional caretaker (!40,000) and maintenance costs
(!50,000) for these sites. It has been assumed that the cost of the
caretaker will transfer from Limerick County Council, thus resulting in
a direct saving to Limerick County Council.
Overall Expenditure and Income has increased by !765,947 and

!621,822 respectively in this Programme Group. The net increase in
expenditure is !144,125.
Road Transportation and Safety
D.2.3 Expenditure in this Programme Group is expected to increase by 14%

and income is expected to increase by 1%.
Programme 2.1. and Programme 2.2. includes road upkeep and

improvement expenditure on National Primary and National
Secondary Roads, Major Urban Roads, Minor Urban Roads and Public
Lighting.
The allocation of grant aid for road upkeep and improvement work is
a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government and the National Roads Authority. This proposal has not
attempted to estimate the effect of the extension on the level of grant
aid that would be received.
In addition to grant aided expenditure on road upkeep and

maintenance each Local Authority allocates their own resources. The
Needs and Resources Model sets target values for the investment of
own resources by Local Authorities.
The following table sets out the additional own resources investment
that would be required by the model for the extended area. It should
be noted that additional expenditure arising from traffic volumes,
proportion of HGV’s and for footpath repair are not reflected in this
target and no additional expenditure has been assumed for these costs.
It is assumed that expenditure on National Primary Roads and
National Secondary Roads is 100% grant aided and no estimate of the
increased expenditure and income has been included.
46
Road Transportation and Safety
D.2.3 Expenditure in this Division is expected to increase by 40.7% and income is

expected to increase by 45.4%.
Division B includes road upkeep and improvement expenditure on National Primary

and National Secondary Roads, Major Urban Roads, Minor Urban Roads and Public
Lighting.
The allocation of grant aid for road upkeep and improvement work is a matter for the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the National
Roads Authority. It has been assumed that any additional expenditure on National
Routes (calculated based on current spend in Limerick County Council per km) would
be matched by a corresponding increase in grant aid. It is more difficult to estimate
additional Regional Grant Aid which would accrue to Limerick City Council in the
event of the proposed boundary extension being granted as Limerick City Council’s
current regional grant aid is based on population. However, existing Regional / Local
Roads grant income has been increased pro rata the proportion of regional & local road
income to expenditure in both Limerick and Clare County Councils.
In addition to grant aided expenditure on road upkeep and maintenance each Local
Authority allocates their own resources.
The following table sets out the additional investment that would be required by the
model for the extended area. It should be noted that additional expenditure arising from
traffic volumes, proportion of HGV’s and for footpath repair are not reflected in this
target and no additional expenditure has been assumed for these costs. It is assumed
that expenditure on National Primary Roads and National Secondary Roads is 100%
grant aided and that the estimated increase in expenditure would be matched by a
corresponding increase in income. The additional spend on regional & local roads
would be funded by a combination of additional grant income (increased in proportion
the income and expenditure ratio on Local & Regional of both Limerick & Clare County
Councils 2010 Annual Budgets) and an allocation from Limerick City Council’s own
resources.
Road Class Limerick City Proposed Additional Cost to Maintain

Added Area: Details of Roads & Service Proposed Extended
(km)* Area
National 21.5 €302,353
Regional 25.3 €1,832,450
Local 225.0 €730,506
Total 271.8 €2,865,309
*Details supplied by Limerick City Council GIS Department
It is estimated that the cost of Public Lighting will increase by €963,125 (based on the
additional length of roads in the extended area, 225.0 x cost of maintaining public
lighting per km incurred by City Council x 50%). It is assumed that of the 225.0km of
road in the extended area 50% has public lighting. This includes national primary and
secondary roads.
Limerick City Council’s estimated spend on traffic management / traffic safety is

expected to increase by €339,668 in the proposed extended area. It is assumed that five
school wardens will transfer from Limerick County Council to Limerick City Council
representing an additional cost of €85,786.
It is assumed that no incremental revenue is generated from traffic fines, car park fees
and disc parking and therefore no allowance has been made for additional costs in this
area of operation as none of the added areas have, at present, paid parking areas.
There is a net increase in expenditure of €1,843,246 for this Division.

Road Class Limerick City Target Total cost
Proposed Expenditure of
Added Area: Own Resources
Details of per km per Needs
Roads (km)* and Resources
Regional 25.15 !7,200 !181,080
Local Primary 45.81 !5,500 !251,955
Local 24.32 !5,500 !133,760
Secondary
Local Tertiary 24.91 !5,500 !137,005
Total 120.19 !703,800
*Details supplied by Limerick City Council GIS Department
It is estimated that the cost of Public Lighting will increase by !289,242

(based on the additional length of roads in the extended area, 149.25 x
cost of maintaining public lighting per km incurred by City Council x
50%). It is assumed that of the 149.25km of road in the extended area
50% has public lighting. This includes national primary and secondary
roads.
Limerick City Council’s estimated spend on traffic management in

2004 is !1,540,834. It is assumed that four school wardens will transfer
from Limerick County Council to Limerick City Council representing
an additional cost of !41,104.
It is assumed that no incremental revenue is generated from traffic

fines, car park fees and disc parking and therefore no allowance has
been made for additional costs in this area of operation as none of the
added areas have, at present, paid parking areas.
It is assumed that expenditure on road safety, cycle lanes and bus

priority measures will increase by !75,000 as a result of this proposal.
Both expenditure and income from Agency Services are expected to

increase by !38,600 (per Needs & Resources 2004).
There is a net increase in expenditure of !1,109,146 for this

Programme Group.
Water Supply and Sewerage
D.2.4 Expenditure in this Programme Group in 2004 is estimated at

!8,748,615, rising to !9,744,184, following the proposed extension.
Income is estimated at !5,308,155 and projected to fall to !4,594,489
after the proposed extension. Expected changes to income are as
follows:
47
Income from Public Supply Water Schemes:
Income lost Income gained Net Income
from other from Increase /
Local commercial (Reduction)
Authorities users of Water
(*Based on 2004
Estimate)
Limerick -!1,180,500 !1,005,511 -!174,989
County
Clare County -!100,832 !124,581 !23,749
-!1,281,332 !1,130,092 -!151,240
It has been assumed that 75% of water going to Limerick County is

used within the city environs and would form part of the added area
for the boundary extension. It has been assumed that 85% of the water
going to Clare County is used within the city environs and would
form part of the added area for the boundary extension. Therefore it is
valid to assume these percentages of the above income relates fully to
the proposed extended area. Income gained back by Limerick City is
calculated on the basis of volume of water currently supplied to
Limerick and Clare counties. We have assumed that in both cases, 65%
of the water consumption is for domestic purposes and the remaining
35%, non domestic, after allowing 30% for unaccountable water. The
billing rate used is !0.9286 per m3, per Limerick City Council charges
for services 2004.
Income from Public Sewerage Schemes:

Income lost Income gained Net Income
from Limerick by Limerick Increase /
and Clare City Council (Reduction)
Councils from commercial
(*Based on 2004 users of Waste
Estimate) Water only
Limerick -!862,500 !301,875 -!560,625
County
Clare County -!97,750 !34,213 -!63,537
-!960,250 !336,088 -!624,162
These assumptions are based as above, that 75% for Limerick County
and 85% for Clare County of the relevant charges relate to areas
within the proposed boundary extension.
The response by Limerick County Council to the 1995 proposal

outlines the additional cost of maintaining the water network in the
extended area. In order to assess the cost in 2004 an inflationary
increase has been applied based on the increase in total expenditure in
the period from 1995 to 2004.
In addition it has been assumed that two engineering staff would

transfer from Limerick County Council to Limerick City Council.
These costs can be summarized as follows:
48
D.2.4 Expenditure in this Division in 2010 is estimated at €14,704,618, rising to

€17,767,372 following the proposed extension. Income is estimated at €9,762,632 and
projected to increase to €1825,386 after the proposed extension. Expected changes to income
are as follows:
(D.2.4) Income from Public Supply Water Schemes:
Income lost Income gained Income gained Net Income

from other Local from from LGF to Increase /
Authorities commercial cover additional (Reduction)
(*Based on 2009 users of Water domestic
Actual) (*Based on 2009 demand
Actual)
Limerick County -€1,866,153 979,730 €2,760,734 €1,874,311
Clare County -€394,099 196,237 €487,188 €289,326
-€2,260,252 1,175,967 €3,247,922 €2,163,637
It has been assumed that 75% of water going to Limerick County is used within the City
environs and would form part of the added area for the boundary extension. It has been
assumed that 85% of the water going to Clare County is used within the city environs and
would form part of the added area for the boundary extension. Therefore it is valid to assume
these percentages in calculating the volume of water supplied to the proposed extended area.
Income gained back by Limerick City is calculated on the basis of volume of water currently
supplied to Limerick and Clare counties. We have assumed that in both cases, 70% of the
water consumption is for domestic purposes and the remaining 30%, non domestic, after
allowing 30% for unaccountable water. The billing rate used is €1.15 per m3, per Limerick
County Council charges for services 2010, is used to calculate the new revenue that would
accrue to Limerick City Council in the proposed extended area from Non Domestic Customers.
Domestic Customers would continue to be funded via the Local Government Fund. This would
necessitate a transfer of funds from the Local Government Fund of Limerick County Council
and Clare County Council to the Local Government Fund of Limerick City Council to fully
cover the cost of providing domestic water & waste water services to the proposed extended
area.
Income from Public Sewerage Schemes:
Income lost Income gained Income gained Net Income

from Limerick by Limerick from LGF to Increase /
and Clare City Council cover additional (Reduction)
Councils from domestic
(*Based on 2009 Commercial demand
Actual) users of Waste
Water only
Limerick County -€1,694,718 1,235,312 €1,157,522 698,116
Clare County -€250,698 247,429 €204,269 201,000
-€1,945,416 1,482,741 €1,361,791 899,116
These assumptions are based as above, that 75% for Limerick County and 85% for Clare
County of the relevant charges relate to areas within the proposed boundary extension.
Expenditure
The additional cost of maintaining the water network, together with associated conservation,
distribution, income collection and administration costs in the proposed extended area must
also be considered. Details of Marginal Capital Cost Loans in relation to the proposed extended
area were provided by Limerick County Council and these have been included. Other relevant
costs as outlined above were increased pro rata on a population basis to estimate the additional
costs to Limerick City Council of servicing this proposed extended area.
In addition it has been assumed that four water services staff would transfer from Limerick
County Council to Limerick City Council. The additional expenditure that would be incurred by
Limerick City in providing water & waste water services to the proposed extended area is
outlined below. These costs, in relation to Limerick County can be summarized as follows:
Cost of additional water supply systems including conservation, maintenance, distribution,
income collection and administration (including additional payroll costs)
€2,708,950
Similarly, the impact on Clare County can be summarized as follows:

Cost of additional water supply systems including conservation, maintenance, distribution,
income collection and administration (including additional payroll costs)
€353,803
The net effect on Division 3 is a Nil due to assumed funding of domesticwater/waste water from
Local Government Fund Allocation from the DEHLG.
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
Development Management (formerly known as Development Incentives and Controls Programme Group)
D.2.5 Income in the Development Management Division would rise from €1,353,701 to €1,670,843
with the extension of the boundary, an increase of 23%. This is accounted for by an increase of 36% in
planning application fees under Development Management. These are expected to increase from €323,989
to €441,538 with the proposed boundary extension.
Additional salaries for four staff members, including one senior executive planner, one executive planner, and
two administration staff (staff officer and clerical officer), are included. It is assumed that these will transfer
from Limerick County Council. Total additional payroll and overhead costs are €222,527.
Tourism Development and Promotion would be expected to increase by €65,526 with the boundary
extension, an increase of 14%.
Community and Enterprise function expenditure would increase by € 221,118, an increase of 23%, which is
increased on a pro-rata basis of the additional population in the extended area.
It is assumed Unfinished Housing Estates expenditure and also Building Control expenditure increases on a
pro-rata basis for the additional population in the extended area.
It’s expected that Economic Development and Promotion expenditure will increase by €124,713. This is
based on Limerick County Council’s expenditure for Budget 2010 and similarly for Clare County Council on
a pro-rata basis per increase of population in the extended area. This expenditure will cover areas of tourist
promotions, tidy towns grants and urban/village renewal costs
It is assumed that heritage and conservation costs would increase on a pro rata basis, rising by €65,279.
The overall net effect is an increase in expenditure of €825,722 for this Division.
Cost of maintaining water supply systems IR£120,000
Maintenance and operation of treatment works IR£131,100
IR£251,100
Equivalent cost in Euro !318,831
% increase in expenditure from 1995 to 2004 123%

Estimated cost in 2004 !710,993
Additional salaries Senior and Executive Engineers !124,800
*transferred
Total additional costs of maintaining water supply !835,793
Similarly, the impact on Clare County can be summarized as follows,

in accordance with their response:
Cost of operating sewerage schemes in added area IR£34,624

Equivalent cost in Euro !43,963
Estimated % increase in expenditure from 1995 to 123%

2004
Estimated cost in 2004 !98,038
Agency services are assumed to increase by !61,737 based on the

projected population increase. This will also be gained in income, thus
with no net effect.
The net effect on Programme Group 3 is a net increase in expenditure

of !1,709,235.
Development Incentives and Controls
D.2.5 Income in the Development Incentives and Control Programme

would rise from !1,399,444 to !1,458,782 with the extension of the
boundary, an increase of 4%. This is accounted for by an increase of
12% in planning application fees. These would increase from !500,000
to !559,338 with the proposed boundary extension. This is based on
increased planning applications of 261 (220 per Limerick County
Council - 1999 Boundary Extension application; 41 assumed for County
Clare added area) at an estimated income of !227.35 per application.
Additional salaries for four staff members, including two executive

planners and two administration staff, are included. It is assumed that
these will transfer from Limerick County. Total additional payroll and
overhead costs are !218,500.
It is assumed that conservation costs would increase on a pro rata

basis, per increased population, rising by !10,895.
Other Development and Promotion expenditure is projected to rise by

!45,250. This is based on Limerick County Council expenditure for
2004 in the areas of tourist promotions, tidy towns grants and
urban/village renewal costs. These costs have been apportioned on a
pro rata basis per head of population in the county.
49
The overall net effect is an increase in expenditure of !215,307 for
this programme group.
Environmental Protection
D.2.6 Estimated income would decrease from !6,252,513 to !4,583,513, a fall

of 27%, in the Environmental Protection Programme.
This is mainly attributable to the Fire Protection subprogramme which

would suffer a loss of 37% falling from !4,775,398 to !3,006,398.
Limerick County Council and Clare County Council receive fire
services from Limerick City Council. This service extends beyond the
proposed added area. The charge for the service is arrived at by
apportioning the total cost of the fire service using an “average of
averages model”.
Limerick City Council has estimated that the charge to Limerick

County Council would fall by 70% following the extension
representing a loss of income to the City Council of !1,568,000.
Limerick City Council has estimated that the charge to Clare County
Council would fall by 67% following the extension representing a loss
of income to the City Council of !201,000.
It has been assumed that Fire Safety Certificate income would be

matched by a similar increase in expenditure, therefore no incremental
amounts have been recorded. Additional staff are required for
Building Control, Pre-Fire Planning and Fire Safety. An estimate of
these costs is not available from Limerick County Council and is
therefore not included in this proposal.
Income from Burial Grounds is assumed to increase !100,000 from

fees related to Mungret Burial Ground (per Limerick County Council
2004 Estimate).
The total loss of income under this programme group is estimated at

!1,669,000.
Expenditure on Environmental Protection would increase by 14% with

the extension of the boundary from !16,368,147 to !18,631,152.
Costs incurred by Limerick County Council on Environmental

awareness, recycling initiatives and cleanups have been apportioned
on a cost per person basis. The cost per person has been applied to the
population of the extended area. The additional expenditure using this
assumption amounts to !266,867.
Expenditure on street cleaning in the extended area has been estimated

using the target value in the Needs and Resources Model which
assumes a spend of !45 per head of population in City Council areas.
This gives an estimated cost for street cleaning in the extended area of
!1,766,835.
50
Environmental Services (formerly known as Environmental Protection Programme Group)
D.2.6 Estimated income would decrease from €7,579,692 to €6,557,051, a fall of 13%, in the
Environmental Services Division.
This is mainly attributable to the Fire Protection service which would suffer a loss of 27% falling from
€6,134,302 to €4,467,326. Limerick County Council and Clare County Council receive fire services
from Limerick City Council. This service extends beyond the proposed added area. The charge for the
service is arrived at by apportioning the total cost of the fire service using an “average of averages
model”. Limerick City Council has estimated that the charge to Limerick County Council would fall by
67% following the extension representing a loss of income to the City Council of €1,615,605.
Limerick City Council has estimated that the charge to Clare County Council would fall by 56%
following the extension representing a loss of income to the City Council of €256,350.
It has been assumed that Fire Safety Certificate income would be matched by a similar increase in
expenditure, therefore no incremental amounts have been recorded. Additional staff are required for
Building Control, Pre-Fire Planning and Fire Safety. An estimate of these costs is not available and is
therefore not included in this proposal. Income from Burial Grounds is assumed to increase by almost
€100,000 from fees related to Mungret Burial Ground.
The total loss of income under this division is estimated at €1,022,641. Expenditure on Environmental
Services would increase by 8% with the extension of the boundary from €19,114,370 to €20,674,249.
Costs incurred by Limerick County Council on Environmental awareness, recycling initiatives, cleanups
and enforcement have been apportioned on a cost per person basis. The cost per person has been
applied to the population of the extended area. The additional expenditure using this assumption
amounts to €621,357. Expenditure on street cleaning in the extended area has been increased on the
basis of population in City Council areas. This gives an estimated cost for street cleaning in the extended
area of €322,150. Maintenance of Burial Grounds would rise by €217,852 to reflect the additional
maintenance costs.
The Regional Control Centre costs are apportioned to all Local Authorities that participate in the
running of the centre using the “average of averages” model. Limerick City Council would have to pay a
larger contribution following the extension and this is estimated at €64,523.
The total additional expenditure in Environmental Services is estimated as €1,559,879.
The net effect on Environmental Services is a net increase in expenditure of €2,582,520.
Recreation and Amenity

D.2.7 Expenditure on Leisure Facilities Operations is assumed to remain unchanged for the extended
area. The projected increase in expenditure for the Operation of Library and Archival Service of
€577,283 is based on the current staffing structure in Dooradoyle library and an associated increase in
running costs of library services due to the larger population being catered for. It is also assumed a van
will have to operate in the Castletroy area of the extended area, as this area currently has a mobile-only
library service. It’s assumed the staff would be transferred from Limerick County Council. The staff
would include, an executive librarian, an assistant librarian, a staff officer, a senior library assistant, a
library assistant, two branch librarians (20 hours each), a caretaker and a part-time cleaner. The total
expected payroll costs from these staff would be €307,283.
The increased expenditure provided for Outdoor Leisure Operations of €439,614 has been increased
pro-rata on the basis of population in extended boundary area. The increased expenditure of €84,116
provided for Community Sport and Recreational Development has been increased on a similar basis.
The additional expenditure on the Operation of Arts Programme of €144,693 has also been calculated
on the pro-rata basis of population in the extended area. This is an anticipate increase in income from
the Arts Council of €25,074.
The projected increase in expenditure consequent on this assumption amounts to €1,245,706.
It is assumed that this additional expenditure covers all activities under the Recreation and Amenity
Division.
Agriculture, Education, Health and Welfare
D.2.8 Increased expenditure for Land Drainage Costs of €66,042 is determined on the basis pro-rata of
the population in the extended area. The main increase in Veterinary Service expenditure relates to
Operation of Dog Warden Service and also Other Animal Welfare Services (including Horse Control)
mainly due to the extended area being mainly urban. The proposed increased expenditure of €167,224
is determined pro-rata on the population in the extended area.
Expenditure and income for Educational Support Services is increased pro-rata to the population in the
extended areas. The increased expenditure of €4,035,098 and increased income of €3,925,730 relate to
payment of VEC pension and Higher Education Grants. VEC Pension and Higher Education Grants are
funded 100%, but the administrative and staffing costs are not funded. An assumption of one additional
clerical officer is required for this function along with some additional office running costs.
Burial costs would rise by !161,600, to reflect additional loan charges
of !99,600 and projected maintenance costs of !62,000 per Limerick
County Council Estimate 2004.
The Regional Control Centre costs are apportioned to all Local

Authorities that participate in the running of the centre using the
“average of averages” model. Limerick City Council would have to
pay a larger contribution following the extension and this is estimated
at !67,703.
The total additional expenditure in Environmental Protection is

estimated as !2,263,005.
The net effect on Environmental Protection is an increase in

expenditure of !3,932,005.
D.2.7 Programme Group income from the Recreation and Amenity

Programme is assumed to remain unchanged.
The Needs and Resources Model sets a target value for expenditure on
recreation and amenity of !35 per head of population for City
Councils. This cost has been applied to the population of the extended
area to give an estimate of the additional spend on recreation and
amenity in the extended area.
The projected increase in expenditure consequent on this assumption

amounts to !1,374,205.
It is assumed that this additional expenditure covers all activities under

the recreation and amenity programme group.
Agriculture, Education, Health and Welfare
D.2.8 Income from programme group 7, Agriculture, Education, Health and

Welfare would rise by 20% from !3,084,818 to !3,703,433 with the
implementation of the boundary extension. This increase would derive
mainly from increased Higher Education Grants of !618,615. This is
derived from applying a 73% increase (based on population increase)
to Limerick City estimated annual grants of !851,720, to arrive at
!618,615.
Total programme expenditure would also increase by this amount.
In addition VEC contributions by Limerick City Council would

increase by !18,450 (on the basis of a 50% increase in rateable
valuation area, applied to Limerick County Council Estimate 2004).
Resultant total expenditure would show an 18% increase with the
boundary extension rising from !3,551,706 to !4,188,771.
51
Miscellaneous Services
D.2.9 The components of the Miscellaneous Services Programme Group are

detailed in Table 24.
Income is derived from a variety of charges ranging from dog licence

fees, recoupment of costs of Veterinary Services, various rents and
loan charges. Income is assumed to remain unchanged in the event of
a boundary change.
Expenditure would increase by !1,252,912 (15%), rising to !9,696,283

per the following table:
Refund of Rates Based on 5.8% per Limerick !517,201

and Irrecoverable County Council estimate 2004,
Rates applied to increased rates
income of !8.8m to Limerick
City.
Additional Rate Estimated additional cost !24,111
Collector
Bank Charges Based on 10% increase on !2,500
Estimate 2004
Valuation Office Based on 50% increase !22,439
Fees
Coroners and 20% increase assumed due to !10,177
Inquest Fees Regional Hospital now in City
Register of Electors Additional costs to complete !24,111
register
Civic Functions Increases based on added area !27,425
Increase in Mayoral 20% increase assumed !10,700
Allowance
Increase in 12 new councillors, expenses !201,485
Councillors based on Limerick City
Expenses Estimate 2004
Public Liability Based on cost per head per !412,763
Insurance Limerick County Council
Estimate 2004 applied to
increased population
Total !1,252,912
52
D.2.9 The components of the Miscellaneous Services Division are detailed in Table 24.
It’s assumed no additional expenditure or income is recognized for the Profit/Loss on the Machinery account
of Stores Account.
There is a significant increase in Administration of Rates expenditure of €2,455,921, and this is due to two
areas of expenditure:
(a) Additional payroll costs, and (b) Provision for bad or doubtful commercial rate debts and vacant
properties. The additional payroll costs assumed are €257,843, which includes two revenue collectors, one
senior staff officer, one assistant staff office and two clerical officers. It’s assumed these staff would be
transferred from Limerick County Council. There is also additional associated office running costs for these
roles.
(b) The additional expenditure for the Provision for Bad/Doubtful debts for commercial rates of €2,188,079 is
based pro-rata on the Net Effective Valuation in the extended boundary currently provided for in Limerick
and Clare County Council’s Budget 2010 figures. It should be noted that in the 2005 Boundary extension
application the figure provided for Bad and Doubtful debt was €517,201. This illustrates how the economic
downturn has impacted on the collection of Commercial Rates since 2005. The requirement for such a large
bad debt provision in 2010 for the proposed extended area would also negate the requirement for a
compensation scheme for Limerick County Council, due to the real burden of Commercial Rate’s bad debt to
be subsumed into the cost of financing the extended boundary area.
Franchise Costs are increased pro-rata to population in the extended area.

It’s assumed the additional cost of financing the Morgue and Coroner service will increase pro-rata to the
population in the extended area, and due to the fact that the extended boundary area will include the Mid-
Western Regional Hospital in Dooradoyle. The expected increase in expenditure for the extended area is:
€77,363.
It’s assumed that there will be 12 additional councilors required in the proposed extended area to ensure
there is proportional representation of the population in this area. The associated increased in this
expenditure, including representational payment, conference and travel allowance and additional
administrative costs is €300,684. There is no anticipated reduction in the expenditure for Limerick County
Council or Clare County Council in this area.
For Motor Taxation in the proposed extended area, Clare County Council provide an on-line Motor Tax
renewal facility in the Westbury Centre, and Limerick County Council have a Motor Taxation office in
Dooradoyle. The anticipated additional expenditure is €426,184, which includes provision for additional
staff and administrative costs. The additional staffing provision is assumed to be transferred from Limerick
County Council and includes: one administrative office, one staff officer, and 6.5 clerical officer. There
additional staff with Limerick City Council’s own staff would be able to provide an efficient service to the
Limerick City Metropolitan area.
Overall, the Miscellaneous Division expenditure would increase by €3,526,658 (40%), rising to
€12,351,293, with the largest proportional increase being the Provision for Bad and Doubtful Commercial
Rates Debts of over €2million for the extended area.
D.3 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM COMMERCIAL RATES
D.3.1 The change in income from commercial rates is a function of the

change in rateable valuation and the general annual rate on valuation
adopted for the financial year. Since 1999 the average annual increase
in the general annual rate on valuation was 5.96%, 6.86% and 6.42%
per annum respectively in the City Council, County Limerick and
County Clare. The 1999 general annual rate on valuation in each of
these Authorities was !54.72, !38.17 and !42.37. The 2002 rates
differentials between Limerick City Council, Limerick County and
Clare County were 39.4% and 28.3% respectively. By 2004 the
differential had declined to 37.4%. and 26.3% (see Table 25).
It is proposed that this differential would be closed on a phased

basis over 12 years for Limerick County Council and 9 years for
Clare County Council (see Table 29).
D.3.2 Based on the commercial valuations supplied by Limerick and Clare

County Council, rates income to Limerick City Council from the
added area is estimated at !9,393,477 in year 1, of which !9,137,614 is
generated in the Limerick County section of the added area and
!255,863 is generated in the Clare section (see Table 26).
It is projected that the rates received by Limerick County Council

would fall by 44% or !8,523,258. In County Clare, the fall in rates
income would amount to !241,093 (based on 2004 rates).
53
D.3 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM COMMERCIAL RATES
D.3.1 The change in income from commercial rates is a function of the change in rateable
valuation and the general annual rate (ARV) on valuation adopted for the financial
year. Since 1999 up to and including 2010, the cumulative increase in the general
annual rate on valuation was 34.4%, 46.6% and 56% respectively in the City Council,
County Limerick and County Clare (as illustrated graphically below). In Budget 2010
the ARV for City Council, County Limerick and County Clare were 76.46, 59.92 and
72.99 respectively (see Table 25 for the average annual increase in each since 1999).
Limerick City Council has made significant attempts to reduce down the differential in
the ARV, particularly with Limerick County Council, as it can be perceived to be anti-
competitive to businesses in Limerick’s city centre, and be a deterrent for new business
set-up in the city-centre.
Rate Multiplier:Cumulative Increase 1999-2010 (base year 1999)

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Limerick City Limerick County
Clare County National Average
Table D 3.1: Cumulative increase of Rate Multiplier (ARV) from 1999 to 2010 (using 1999 as
base ). Source: DoEHLG and OLAM.
It’s proposed the differential between the three ARV’s for each of the local authority
area would be closed over a period of 12 years for Limerick County Council, and 3
years for Clare County Council (see Table 29).
D.3.2 Based on the commercial valuations supplied by Limerick County Council and
estimated for Clare County Council, rates income to Limerick City Council from the
added area is estimated at €11,973,003 in year 1, of which €11,608,815 is generated
in the Limerick County section of the added area and €364,188 is generated in the
Clare section (see Table 26).
The overall net gain to Limerick City Council after proposed extension is estimated at
€2,182,132. This gain is dependent on many assumptions being met (e.g. Local
Government Fund allocation to be transferred by DoEHLG to Limerick City Council to
fund Domestic Water/Waste Water costs). It’s recommended that the gain arising from
efficiencies etc. proposed in this paper should be used to reduce down the Annual
Rate on Valuation (ARV) for Rate Payers in the Limerick City Metropolitan area.
It is projected that the rates received by Limerick County Council would fall by
42.5% or €11,663,551. In County Clare, the fall in rates income would amount 1%
or €364,042 (based on 2010 rates).
SECTION E : ADJUSTMENTS OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS
PROPOSED BETWEEN PROPOSER AND
RESPONDENTS
E.1 FINANCIAL MATTERS
The term "financial matters" is employed in article 4(e) of the Local

Government (Boundary Alteration ) Regulations of 1996. The City
Council interprets that term to embrace Local Government Fund
allocations, financial adjustments and impacts on the affected Local
Authorities.
E.1.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUND ALLOCATION
E.1.1.1 The allocation of the Local Government Fund is a matter for the
DOEHLG. The fund is currently distributed using a combination of
guaranteed minimum allocations and allocations from the Needs and
Resources Model.
It is assumed in this proposal that Limerick County Council and Clare

County Council would still receive their minimum allocation following
the proposed extension. The allocation from the Needs and Resources
Model will be based on the needs and resources of each Local
Authority following the proposed extension and no attempt has been
made to estimate the likely impact of the proposed extension on this
allocation.
E.1.1.2 Should the DOEHLG decide to change the proportion of the Local
Government Fund that is allocated through the Needs and Resources
Model, Limerick City Council will not be liable for any loss in funding
suffered by Limerick County Council or Clare County Council as a
result of this decision.
E.1.2 FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS
E.1.2.1 Statutory Instrument No. 410 of 1985 sets out, in article 7, a number of
measures relating to the financial adjustments, in respect of any matter
or thing, arising from a boundary alteration whether agreed or
compulsory. The matters covered include agreed or compulsory
adjustments in respect of net loss of revenue, real or personal
property, debts and liabilities.
E.1.2.2 Where the parties concerned fail to agree upon an equitable

adjustment of any matter or thing the Minister shall, upon the request
of any one of the parties, make a compulsory adjustment. Every
adjustment, agreed or compulsory, shall have effect according to its
terms and shall be final, conclusive and enforceable.
54
E. 1.3 IMPACT ON FINANCES POST BOUNDARY EXTENSION –
EFFECT ON LIMERICK COUNTY
The response document of Limerick County Council of April 2005 has

been considered.
E.1.3.1 Methodology
Limerick City Council assessed the impact on Limerick County

Council in its proposal of October 2004. Allowance was made for the
transfer of staff within certain areas. Where appropriate target values
in the Needs and Resources Model were used to assess the impact on
Limerick County Council. The Model uses different target values for
City and County Councils. In assessing the impact on the County
Council the target values for County Councils were used.
Limerick County Council prepared a detailed response to the original

proposal.
This section sets out the original financial impact as assessed by

Limerick City Council in October 2004, the financial impact as assessed
by Limerick County Council in its response document dated April 2005
and a revised assessment by Limerick City Council taking account of
the original proposal and the response received.
Limerick County Council in its response distinguished between a Year

1 and a Year 5 financial impact on the basis that it would take 5 years
to achieve certain savings. In the revised assessment Limerick City
Council have used the 5 year savings throughout. It is assumed that
sufficient time will be given for the implementation of the extension to
ensure that savings are realised immediately.
Limerick County Council in its response did not rely on the Needs and
Resources Model in any way to assess the impact on it.
In arriving at the revised assessment, of the effect on Limerick County

Council, Limerick City Council has continued to rely on the target
values per the Needs and Resources Model for street cleaning and
recreation and amenity. In other areas of expenditure the difference
between the actual spend as assessed by Limerick County Council and
the estimated effect as assessed by Limerick City were not material so
the actual spend as notified by Limerick County Council has been used
as the revised assessment.
Limerick County Council in its response highlighted a number of

income sources that were under estimated in the original proposal.
These under estimates have all been taken account of in the revised
assessment.
55
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
E. 1.3 IMPACT ON FINANCES POST BOUNDARY EXTENSION – EFFECT ON

LIMERICK COUNTY
E.1.3.2 Summary
Limerick City Council assesses the loss (in 2010 updates

submission) to Limerick County at €3,426,510.
E.1.3.3 Effect on Income, Limerick County Council
The impact of a boundary extension on Limerick County Council

across all income sources, other than rates, would be a loss of
income of €14,410,377. The following table shows the impact on
income, of the boundary extension, by Division.
Table A
Income lost by Limerick
County Council per
Limerick City Council
proposal May 2010
Housing & Building -1,086,128
Road Transport & Safety -2,133,346
Water Services -6,133,299
Development Management -270,712
Environmental Services -673,778
Recreation & Amenity -54,675
Agriculture, Education -3,351,562
Miscellaneous Services -706,876
-14,410,377
Rates income lost -11,663,551
Projected loss of income by

Limerick County Council
-€26,073,928
E.1.3.2 Summary
Limerick County Council in their response assessed the net loss to

them at !2,982,187.
Limerick City Council had originally assessed the loss to Limerick

County at !535,219. The revised assessment estimates the loss at
!1,178,874.
The difference between the loss as calculated by Limerick County

Council and as calculated originally by Limerick City Council amounts
to !2,446,969. The three most significant items giving rise to the
difference are:
Street Cleaning !1,052,704

Recreation and amenity !355,309
Provision for refund of rates !506,596
The difference in street cleaning and recreation and amenity arises as a

result of the use of the target value per Needs and Resources Model by
Limerick City Council and the use of actual spend in 2004 by Limerick
County Council. Limerick City Council believes this difference
highlights the underinvestment by the County Council in services in
the added area.
The difference in the provision for refunds of rates arises as a result of

the omission of this cost by Limerick County Council in its assessment.
Limerick County Council in their response has demonstrated that

!2.9m of rates raised in the added area are spent outside the added
area. Limerick County Council assert that they need to hold onto the
added area “to ensure that balanced growth occurs across the urban
and rural areas”. This rationale is contrary to the national structure of
Local Government where City and Town Councils administer urban
areas.
Limerick County Council assessed a 12 year financial impact in their

response. In assessing the 12 year impact Limerick County Council
have made no attempt to demonstrate an intention to move in any
way towards achieving the target value spend in areas where they are
not achieving it currently. It is a fundamental principle of the Needs
and Resources Model that Local Authorities should over time attempt
to achieve the target value spend in provision of services.
E.1.3.3 Effect on Income, Limerick County Council

across all income sources, other than rates, would be a loss of income
of !2,751,346. This is below the County’s assessment of a loss of over
!3,032,953. The following table shows the impact on income, of the
boundary extension, by Programme Group.
56
Table A
Income lost Revised
by Limerick income lost by
County Income lost Limerick
Council per by Limerick County
Limerick City County Council per
Council Council Limerick City
proposal response Council Oct
October 2004 April 2005 2005
Housing & Building 0 -76,587 -76,587
Road Transportation &
Safety 0 -67,000 -67,000
Water Supply & Sewage -1,307,386 -1,862,741 -1,862,741
Development Incentives
& Control -49,940 -517,649 -517,649
Environmental Protection -100,000 -431,509 -149,902
Recreation & Amenities 0 -23,333 -23,333
Agriculture, Education 0 -49,593 -49,593
Miscellaneous Services 0 -4,541 -4,541
-1,457,326 -3,032,953 -2,751,346
Rates income lost -7,834,686 -8,005,565 -8,523,258
Projected loss of income

by Limerick County
Council -!9,292,012 -!11,038,518 -!11,274,604
57
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
E.1.3.4 Effect on Expenditure, Limerick County Council

The impact of a boundary extension on Limerick County Council across all
expenditure sources, would be a saving of expenditure of €22,647,418
(based on submission update for 2010). The following table shows the
impact on expenditure of the boundary extension by Division.
Table B
Expenditure savings for
Limerick County Council per
proposal May 2010
Housing & Building 1,334,606
Road Transport & Safety 3,657,210
Water Services 6,133,299
Development Management 871,165
Environmental Services 2,786,006
Recreation & Amenity 1,101,135
Agriculture, Education 3,655,710
Miscellaneous Services 3,108,289
Projected expenditure saving
€22,647,418
E.1.3.5 Net effect on Income and Expenditure, Limerick County Council, by

Programme Group
The following table sets out the nett saving / (loss) by Division for
Limerick County Council arising from a boundary extension:
E.1.3.4 Effect on Expenditure, Limerick County Council
across all expenditure sources, would be a saving of expenditure of
!10,095,730. This is the County’s assessment of a saving of !8,056,331.
The following table shows the impact on expenditure of the boundary
extension by Programme Group.
Table B
Expenditure Revised
savings for expenditure
Limerick savings for
County Expenditure Limerick
Council per savings per County
Limerick City Limerick Council per
Council County Council Limerick City
proposal response April Council Oct
October 2004 2005 2005
Safety 604,897 689,351 689,351
Water Supply & Sewage 2,878,794 2,968,587 3,093,377
& Control 257,176 855,000 855,000
Environmental Protection 2,964,467 2,147,339 3,200,043
Recreation & Amenities 1,053,753 698,444 1,053,753
Agriculture, Education 17,527 80,614 80,614
Miscellaneous Services 890,179 447,910 954,506
Projected expenditure
saving !8,756,793 !8,056,331 !10,095,730
E.1.3.5 Net effect on Income and Expenditure, Limerick County Council, by

Programme Group
Limerick City Council has amended it’s assessment of the financial

impact of the boundary extension on Limerick County Council so that
four of the Programme Groups – Housing and Building, Road
Transportation and Safety, Development Incentives and Control,
Agriculture and Education – agree with the findings of Limerick
County Council as laid out in it’s response. The following table sets out
the nett saving / (loss) by Programme Group.
58
Table C
Net impact Net impact per Net impact
Per Limerick Limerick per Limerick
City Council County Council City Council
proposal Oct response April review Oct
2004 2005 2005
Safety 604,897 622,351 622,351
Water Supply & Sewage 1,571,408 1,105,846 1,230,636
& Control 207,236 337,351 337,351
Environmental Protection 2,864,467 1,715,830 3,050,141
Recreation & Amenities 1,053,753 675,111 1,030,420
Agriculture, Education 17,527 31,021 31,021
Miscellaneous Services 890,179 443,369 949,965
7,299,467 5,023,378 7,344,384
Rates income lost -7,834,686 -8,005,565 -8,523,258
Net loss to Limerick -!535,219 -!2,982,187 -!1,178,874

County Council
The variances in the final projections across the remaining

Programme Groups – Water, Environment, Recreation, Miscellaneous
are fully explained in each of the relevant paragraphs below.
Housing & Building

The impact of the boundary extension on both income and
expenditure is laid out as follows:
59
Table C
Net impact Per Limerick City
Council proposal May 2010
Housing & Building 248,477

Road Transport & Safety 1,523,864
Water Services 0
Environmental Services 2,112,228
Recreation & Amenity 1,046,459
Agriculture, Education 304,147
Miscellaneous Services 2,401,412
8,237,041
Rates income lost -11,663,551
Net loss to Limerick County -€3,426,510

Council
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
Table D
Net impact Per Net impact per Net impact
Limerick City Limerick County per Limerick
Council Council response City Council
proposal Oct April 2005 review Oct
2004 2005
Income lost 0 -76,587 -76,587
Expenditure saved 90,000 169,086 169,086
Net saving/(loss) !90,000 !92,499 !92,499
In its response, Limerick County Council factored additional income

lost from rented Local Authority dwellings, essential repairs grants,
disabled persons grants and the provision of traveller accommodation.
However these income sources were matched by corresponding costs.
The net savings to Limerick County Council are !92,499. This
represents a minimal increase on the original projected net savings as
assessed by Limerick City Council in its original proposal in October
2004.
Road Transportation & Safety

The impact of the boundary extension on both income and
expenditure in this Programme Group is laid out as follows:
Table E
2004 2005 2005
Income lost 0 -67,000 -67,000
Net saving/(loss) !604,897 !622,351 !622,351
In its response, Limerick County Council considered lost

income from public lighting, which Limerick City Council have
accepted. In addition, there were some increases in projected
expenditure on roads, public lighting and residential estates. Limerick
City Council has revised its assessment of the financial impact on
Limerick County and concurs with the assessment of a net saving of
!622,351. This represents an increase of !17,454 on the original
position.
60
The impact of the boundary extension on both income and expenditure
in this Programme Group is laid out as follows:
Table F
2004 2005 2005
Income:
Water -1,005,511 -1,643,692 -1,643,692
Waste water -301,875 -219,049 -219,049
Income lost -1,307,386 -1,862,741 -1,862,741
Expenditure:
Water operation/maint. 1,520,292 1,251,667 1,251,667
Waste water
operation/maintaince 1,233,712 1,216,920 1,216,920
Interest costs 500,000 500,000
Transfer of salaries 124,790 124,790
Expenditure saved 2,878,794 2,968,587 3,093,377
Net saving/(loss) !1,571,408 !1,105,846 !1,230,636
The assessment of lost income was underestimated in the

original proposal, by !555,355. The expenditure saved was
underestimated by !214,583. The net impact was an overstatement of
the savings due to Limerick County Council of !340,772.
Development Incentives and Control

Table G
Per Limerick Limerick per
City Council County Council Limerick
proposal Oct response April City
2004 2005 Council
review Oct
2005
Income lost -49,940 -517,649 -517,649
Net saving/(loss) !207,236 !337,351 !337,351
The assessment of lost income in relation to planning

applications in the extended area was underestimated in Limerick City
Council’s original proposal, by !467,709. The expenditure saved was
61
also underestimated. Limerick County Council in its statement of
response, have assessed their likely expenditure saving as !855,000
based on the population in the added area. Limerick City Council has
revised its assessment of the impact on this basis. The net impact is an
increase in the savings due to Limerick County Council of !130,115.
Environmental Protection
Table H
2004 2005 2005
Income:
Burial Income -100,000 -100,000 -100,000
Recycling -5,550 -5,550
Water safety -6,352 -6,352
Fire certificate
applications 0 -281,607 0
Licence applications 0 -6,000 -6,000
Fire service charges 0 -32,000 -32,000
Income lost -100,000 -431,509 -149,902
Expenditure:
Waste disposal 1,234,867 182,163 1,234,867
Burial grounds 161,600 151,743 151,743
Derelict sites 4,000 4,000
Water safety 6,352 6,352
Laboratory 18,000 18,000
Fire service 1,568,000 1,785,081 1,785,081
Expenditure saved 2,964,467 2,147,339 3,200,043
Net saving/(loss) !2,864,467 !1,715,830 !3,050,141
Limerick County Council, in its response, estimated a loss of

income of !431,509 in comparison to the original assessment of
!100,000 per Limerick City Council. The main increase arose from
additional income from fire certificate applications of !281,607.
However in order to maintain consistency, Limerick County Council
should have also made a provision for the saving in expenditure
relating to the provision of this service. In the original proposal, the
effect on income and expenditure was ignored as it was assumed to be
neutral. This assumption is maintained by Limerick City Council.
Limerick City Council concur with the other income savings and have
amended the projected income loss to Limerick County Council to
!149,902, an increase of !49,902 on the original proposal.
Limerick City Council has reviewed the proposed expenditure

savings arising from a boundary extension, in all categories above and
62
has revised its projections to concur with the proposed savings across
all categories except waste disposal. The Needs and Resources Model
allows a target expenditure of !45 per person for street
cleaning/waste disposal. Limerick City Council in its original proposals
have allowed for an saving in Limerick County Council’s expenditure
of approximately !37 per person. This compares to an approximate
cost of !5 per person in the added area, per the County’s response. On
this basis, Limerick City Council feel it is appropriate to assess the
expenditure savings per the original proposal. The net impact against
the original proposal is a saving of expenditure of !3,200,043 being
additional savings of !235,576 on the original proposal.
The overall impact for this Programme Group is a projected net

saving to Limerick County Council of !3,050,141. This is an increase of
!185,674 on the original proposal.

Table I
Per Limerick Limerick per
City Council County Council Limerick
proposal Oct response April City
2004 2005 Council
review Oct
2005
Income lost 0 -23,333 -23,333
Expenditure:
Library 469,826 386,760 469,826
Parks 469,826 311,684 469,826
Contribution to arts
activities 114,101 114,101
Expenditure saved 1,053,753 698,444 1,053,753
Net saving/(loss) !1,053,753 !675,111 !1,030,420
The income lost by the County was revised to reflect income lost from
library services. The cost per head of population to cover library,
parks, contribution to arts etc was estimated at !35 per person in the
added area. Limerick County Council have assessed this at !20 per
person. This is substantially below the Needs and Resources target of
!45 per person. On this basis, Limerick City Council have left the
original assessment of the expenditure savings unchanged, at
!1,053,753.
The net impact is that Limerick County will save !1,030,420 as a result
of the boundary extension.
Agriculture and Education
63
is laid out as follows:
Table J
2004 2005 2005
Income lost 0 -49,593 -49,593
Net saving/(loss) !17,527 !31,021 !31,021
The net impact in this programme group is merely an increase in

proposed savings of !13,494. This concurs with the findings of
Limerick County Council.
64
Miscellaneous
is laid out as follows:
Table K
Net impact Net impact Net impact
Per Limerick per Limerick per Limerick
2004 2005 2005
Income lost 0 -4,541 -4,541
Expenditure:
Refund of rates 506,596 506,596
VEC contributions 18,450 18,450
Coroners and Inquest
fees 10,177 0
Register of Electors 20,608 9,460 9,460
Insurance: public liability
costs 352,798 420,000 420,000
Net saving/(loss) !890,179 !443,369 !949,965
The significant change in the proposed expenditure saving as

estimated by Limerick County Council is the omission of rates
refunds/write offs. Having regard to Limerick County Council’s
Estimates 2004, it would appear that rates refunds/write offs amount
to approximately 6%. We have adjusted the proposed expenditure
savings in accordance with the above.
The net impact on this Programme Group is an increase of !59,786 in

proposed savings, resulting in estimated savings of !949,965.
65
Rates
The impact of the boundary extension on lost rates income is as
follows:
Table L
2004 2005 2005
Rates income lost -!7,834,686 -!8,005,565 -!8,523,258
Limerick County Council has advised in its response that the actual
rates in the added area amounts to !8,005,565, an increase of !170,879
on the original proposal by Limerick City Council. Following receipt of
the response from Limerick County Council, Limerick City Council
were advised by Limerick County that all of the information received
previously from Limerick County relating to net effective valuation of
the added area had not included global valuations. Limerick County
Council have now advised that they estimate !517,693 additional rates
income arising from these global valuations will be lost by them. The
revised assessment takes account of this loss.
The revised estimated loss of rates income to Limerick County

Council amounts to !8,523,258.
E.1.4 IMPACT ON FINANCES POST BOUNDARY EXTENSION –

EFFECT ON CLARE COUNTY
E.1.4.1 Methodology
Limerick City Council assessed the impact on Clare County Council in

its proposal of October 2004. Where appropriate target values in the
Needs and Resources Model were used to assess the impact on Clare
County Council. The Model uses different target values for City and
County Councils. In assessing the impact on the County Council the
target values for County Councils were used.
Clare County Council prepared a detailed response to the original

proposal.
This section sets out the original financial impact as assessed by

Limerick City Council in October 2004, the financial impact as assessed
by Clare County Council in its response document dated April 2005
and a revised assessment by Limerick City Council taking account of
the original proposal and the response received.
Clare County Council in its response did not rely on the Needs and
Resources Model in any way to assess the impact on it.
66
E.1.4.2 Summary
Clare County Council in their response assessed the net saving to them
at !547,673.
Limerick City Council had originally assessed the saving to Clare

County at !555,749. The revised assessment estimates the saving at
!547,673.
The effect as assessed by Limerick City Council in October 2004

differed by !8,076 to the amount as assessed by Clare County Council.
The revised assessment has used the figures as provided by Clare
County Council.
Table M
Per Limerick Clare County per Limerick
City Council Council City Council
2004 2005 2005
Housing & Building 0 0 0
Safety 151,224 180,560 180,560
Water Supply & Sewage 137,827 436,479 436,479
& Control -2,824 19,004 19,004
Environmental Protection 410,890 167,000 167,000
Recreation & Amenities 179,106 0 0
Agriculture, Education 922 0 0
Miscellaneous Services 88,592 0 0
965,737 803,043 803,043
Rates income lost -409,988 -255,370 -255,370
Net saving for Clare

County Council !555,749 !547,673 !547,673
E.1.5 COMMENTARY ON SECTION 6, FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS,

OF THE LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE
E.1.5.1 Limerick County Council in their response have concluded from their
financial review that:
“Ratepayers in the extended area would pay additional rates of close to

!50 million in net present value terms over the proposed twelve year
transition period, excluding any increases due to inflation.
After the transition period is completed, the annual increase in the
rates demand in the extended area would be some !7.3
67
E.1.4 IMPACT ON FINANCES POST BOUNDARY EXTENSION – EFFECT ON

CLARE COUNTY
E.1.4.2 Summary
Limerick City Council assess the saving (as update for 2010
updated submission) to Clare County at €1,617,188.
The following table sets out the nett saving / (loss) by Division for Clare
County Council arising from a boundary extension
Table M
Table C
Net impact Per Limerick
City Council proposal May
2010
Housing & Building 23,632
Road Transport & Safety 319,382
Water Services 0
Environmental Services 470,292
Recreation & Amenity 129,508
Agriculture, Education 36,675
Miscellaneous Services 48,389
1,253,146
Rates income lost 364,042
Net saving to Clare County €1,617,188

Council
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
million.<Conclusion 1> However, the Local Government Fund
allocation of Limerick County and City combined would fall by some
!4.6 million. <Conclusion 2> In practice 63% of the rates increase
would transfer to other areas in Ireland and would not benefit
Limerick.
After accounting for (1) the increased expenditure proposed by the
City in the extension area; (2) the reduced efficiency arising from the
transfer of expenditure in the extended area from the County to the
City and (3) the overall reduction in the LGF allocation to two
authorities, there would be a shortfall in revenue of !2 million per
annum. <Conclusion 3>”
The conclusions set out above are interdependent. Conclusion 2 is

arrived at by using the income figures in conclusion 1 and conclusion 3
is arrived at using the figures in conclusion 2.
E.1.5.2. Effect on Rates
The conclusion that ratepayers in the extended area would pay

additional rates of !50 million is incorrect.
In order to reach this conclusion Limerick County Council adjusted the

valuations of properties in the added area by a factor of 26% upon
transfer. The power to change the valuation of a property is set out in
Part 6 of the Valuation Act 2001. In order to change the valuation of a
property Limerick City Council have to apply to the Commissioner of
Valuation to have a revision of valuation. A revision officer appointed
by the Commissioner will only revise the valuation if a material
change in circumstances has occurred since the property was last
valued. It is Limerick City Council’s opinion that the transfer of a
property arising from a boundary extension is not an event that gives
rise to a change in valuation. No such change occurred in the case of
Galway.
Furthermore the setting of the annual rate on valuation is a matter for

the elected members and any effort to assess a 12-year impact on rates
is unreliable as each year a new budget is presented taking into
account the factors at that time. The 12-year impact on rates put
forward by Limerick County Council represents a period in which
there will be 2 newly formed Councils following Local Elections in 2009
and 2014.
Limerick County Council in its response admits to spending !3.96

million less in the added area than they raise in income in the added
area. This represents 50% of the rates raised in the added area. This
means that ratepayers in the added area are paying 50% of their rates
to finance services provided elsewhere in the County. This has been
happening for many years and using the 12-year period the County
Council have used, then over !47m in rates in the added area will not
have been spent in the added area. This level of under investment in
services in the added area cannot be allowed to continue and can be
corrected by the granting of a boundary extension.
68
Nationally rates have increased by 47.6% between 1998 and 2005. The
level of increase in Limerick County Council has been 53.6% or 12.5%
above the national average. In comparison the level of increase in
Limerick City Council has been 44.56% or 6.3% below the national
average. This demonstrates that Limerick County Council have been
increasing rates at a faster pace than the national average and these
rates are being used to fund services outside the area that the
ratepayers operate. Limerick City Council’s modest levels of increase
demonstrate commitment to a value for money approach to
delivering effective and efficient services.
The original proposal stated that there would be a 12 year transition

period during which the ratepayers in the added area would incur a
minimum 2% increase in rates each year for 12 years. It should be
noted that in 2005 the increase in rates in Limerick City was 3.6% and
in Limerick County it was 5.5%, over one a half times higher than the
increase in the City. If this trend continues then the convergence may
not take 12 years to achieve.
E.1.5.3 Fiscal Efficiency
Given that conclusion 1 has been demonstrated to be incorrect then

the remainder of the financial conclusions arrived at by Limerick
County Council are also incorrect and cannot be relied on in any way.
In calculating the net loss to it Limerick County Council took no

account of Limerick City Council’s proposal to pay compensation to
Limerick County Council.
E.1.5.4 Local Government Fund
It should be noted that in the original proposal by Limerick City

Council it was proposed on page 56 that “the allocation of the Local
Government Fund is a matter for the DOEHLG and no attempt has
been made to estimate the likely impact of the proposed extension on
this allocation”. It was also noted on page 56 that “it is assumed that
there will be no additional cost to the Local Government Fund arising
from this proposal”.
Despite these assumptions Limerick County Council has prepared a

detailed analysis of the effect on the Local Government Fund. The
analysis uses the rates figures calculated using the incorrect
assumption that valuations would increase following the extension.
Therefore the entire analysis is flawed and the conclusions reached by
it do not require any comment.
E.1.5.5 Transfer of Assets
Limerick County Council state in their reply that:
“In addition, the County would transfer assets that have been funded
through the County’s own resources and that have a value of !8.67 million to
the City, if the proposed extension were to proceed”.
69
The original proposal on Page 42 stated that “in no circumstances can
consideration be given to funding historical spend that has already
been funded”. The proposal by Limerick County Council that they be
compensated for these assets would mean that ratepayers in the added
area would be paying twice for such assets. No consideration can be
given to such double taxation.
E.1.5.6 Summary
Financial effect is one of the main reasons that Limerick County

Council is opposed to the boundary extension. It has been
demonstrated that the financial conclusions of Limerick County
Council are flawed. The financial information was presented in a
fashion that created fear and uncertainty among the business interests
in the proposed added area.
E.1.6 COMMENTARY ON SECTION 3, FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS,

OF THE CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE
The financial impact of the boundary extension for Clare County

Council is a saving of approximately !500,000. Since the calculated
savings, as prepared by Limerick City Council and Clare County
Council are broadly similar, it is not proposed to review the response
in detail. The figures as supplied by Clare County Council in their
response gives a reduction in the saving by Clare County Council of
!8,076.
It should be noted that Clare County Council in response have

outlined that they spend !nil in the added area on recreation and
amenity. This is proof of the under resourcing of services in the added
area.
E.1.7 FUTURE FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This proposal has assessed the immediate financial impact on each

Local Authority of the proposed extension. The income and
expenditure of Local Authorities is determined on an annual basis
through the annual budget process.
It is proposed to pay a reasonable compensation to Limerick County

Council for the loss in income that this proposal has estimated. It is
therefore not relevant to consider the loss of future income when
considering this proposal.
It is assumed that future financial impacts other than those considered

and dealt with in this proposal would be accommodated by changes in
allocations from the Local Government Fund.
70
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
E.2.1.1
In 2008 a commission was appointed to review the boundaries of all local
constituencies in Ireland. This commission reported in June 2008. The committee thus
considered the new boundary of Limerick City which had been extended in March
2008.
Limerick City had the second-lowest ratio of people per elected member of all of the
cities. Cork showed a deterioration in its position although all other cities improved
relative to the 1996 ratio.
Place Population per Member 2006

Cork 3852
Dublin 9735
Galway 4828
Limerick 3517
Waterford 3050
E.2.1.2
Outside of Dublin and the Cities the average population per member was 3,820. In
Limerick County the average per member was 4,438 and in Clare County was 3,467.
Limerick City had 3,517 per member.
The old constituencies of Limerick County were significantly altered with Bruff being
redrawn and the new constituency area abutting Limerick City being renamed Adare.
The following table gives the reorganized constituencies.
E.2 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
E.2.0 The term "administrative matters" is employed in article 4(e) of the

Regulations of 1996. The City Council interprets that term to embrace
local government electoral ratios, local enactments and Strategic Policy
Committees (SPCs).
E.2.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORAL RATIOS
E.2.1.1 The national average of population per elected member is 3,866:1. If

the Dublin area is removed, the national average falls to 3,164:1. In
Limerick City, the ratio was 3,061:1 in 1991 and is now 3,178:1. Thus it
is largely unchanged from the 1991 position. The ratio of 3,178:1 is the
second lowest of all the cities.
City Population per Elected Member 1996
Cork 3,970
Dublin 8,637
Galway 4,389
Limerick 3,178
Waterford 2,973
E.2.1.2 By comparison, the ratio of population per elected member in

Limerick County is 4,331:1 which represents a significant increase over
the 1996 position of 4,035:1. The ratio in Clare County is 3,227:1 which
represents an increase over the 1996 position of 2,935:1.
Representation in the County electoral areas abutting the City, on the
basis of 1991 Census figures, is set out in the table below.
71
(E.2.1.2 Contd.)
Population per Member

Constituency Population2006
2006
Adare 31370 4481
Castleconnell 31341 4477
Sub Total 62710 4479
Kilmallock 21818 4364
Newcastlewest 22275 4455
Rathkeale 17461 4365
If the added area of Limerick and Clare were to be included with the City, the extended
city would have a population of about 93,145 persons, not much different from the
estimated 2002 position. Adding 12 members to the city would thus give 29 members to
the city council with a representation of 3,211 per member.
Some 6067 persons would be deducted from Clare, giving a new ratio of 3277 per
member with no reduction in membership. Again some 34,539 persons would have to
be deducted from Limerick County giving a ratio of 3204 per councillor in Limerick
with no reduction in membership. The combined local electoral areas of Adare and
Castleconnell would be reduced by almost half, possibly necessitating a rebalancing of
the Limerick County Constituencies.
Area Population 2002 Members Ratio
Bruff 32,855 7 4,693:1

Castleconnell 32,998 7 4,714:1
Sub. Total 65,853 14 4,703:1
Kilmallock 16,986 4 4,249:1
Newcastle 19,078 5 3,930:1
Rathkeale 17,472 5 3,755:1
Limerick County 121,281 28 4,331:1
E.2.1.3 The analysis following is based on 2002 Census data. If the added area
of Limerick & Clare were to be included with the City this would add
39,263 persons giving a total of 93,321. In the absence of any
identifiable national pattern, it is suggested that the 2002 ratio of
population per elected member in the City, i.e. 3,178:1, be applied in
the extended area. This would result in an estimated increase of 12 on
the existing City Council membership giving a potential total of 29
members.
E.2.1.4 Limerick County would be reduced by 33,559 persons in the Bruff and
Castleconnell areas, reducing the overall 2002 County population to
87,722 and with 28 members giving 3,132 persons per elected member
as opposed to 4,331 (2002 data).
E.2.1.5 Clare would be reduced by 5,704 persons from 103,277 to 97,573

giving a population ratio of 3,049 per member as opposed to 2,732
(2002 data). In the Killaloe area, to which Parteen belongs, the
population would decrease from 14,078 to 8,374 and would give a ratio
of 2,093 per member.
E.2.1.6 Overall, the extension would result in a fairer representation for the
electorates in all three local authorities than the current situation.
E.2.2 LOCAL ENACTMENTS
E.2.2.1 It is proposed by Limerick City Council that the arrangements

regarding local enactments consequent on the subject proposed
boundary alteration would take the same general form as the
arrangements made in the case of the 1985 alteration to the boundary
of Galway City. Those latter arrangements are set out in articles 2 to 6
inclusive of the City of Galway (Alteration of Boundary)
(Implementation) Order, 1985 (Statutory Instrument No. 410 of 1985) -
see Appendix 8.
72
E.2.3 STRATEGIC POLICY COMMITTEES
E.2.3.1 Limerick City Council introduced five Strategic Policy Committees in

1998 covering the main policy areas of the City Council -
1. Housing and Social Policy

2. Environmental Policy
3. Road Transportation and Infrastructure
4. Economic Development and Future Planning
5. Arts, Culture, Tourism and Sport.
They consist of elected and non-elected persons reflecting the social

partnership approach that has worked so well at central government
level. The SPCs are central to the approach of Better Local
Government and one of the key mechanisms through which Limerick
City Council intends to plan for the future of the entire city.
E.3 ORGANISATIONAL MATTERS
E.3.0 The term "organisational matters" is employed in article 4(e) of the

Regulations of 1996. The City Council interprets that term to embrace
staffing and restructuring of services.
E.3.1 STAFFING
E.3.1.1 Staffing requirements following the extension of the boundary may be

divided into:
1. Direct employment required for works within the added

area, including road maintenance, sanitary services,
maintenance of open space, etc., as well as other staff
such as school crossing wardens and library staff.
2. Additional professional and administrative headquarters

staff required to service the added area.
E.3.1.2 Employees of Limerick County Council engaged directly on works

within the added area would be transferred to the City Council. The
numbers of such staff have not been identified having in most cases
been subsumed into the pro rata costs of such items as road and
drainage maintenance.
E.3.1.3 Details of professional and administrative staff that would transfer are
set out in section D. It is assumed that no new posts would be created
as a result of this proposal and therefore there will be no increase in
the overall payroll cost of operating the three Local Authorities as a
result of this proposal.
73
E.3.1.4 The extent to which staffing implications of the proposed extension
may be addressed through transfer of staff between authorities has
been quantified. However, detailed negotiations would have to take
place to ensure staff would be voluntarily transferred.
E.3.2 RESTRUCTURING OF SERVICES
E.3.2.1 Following the implementation of the proposed boundary extension it

will be necessary to restructure the services provided by the City
Council to suit the changed circumstances. In that regard the guiding
principles will be effectiveness and convenience from the standpoint of
the consumers of those services.
74
SECTION F: TRANSITIONAL MEASURES
F.1 FINANCIAL MEASURES
F.1.1 Extension of the City boundary will necessitate the establishment of a

single uniform general annual rate of valuation for both the city and
the added area. This requires that the two rates operative at present
within the extended area correspond to the city rate. To achieve
correspondence of rates, it is proposed that this differential would be
closed on a phased basis. This will mitigate the financial impacts of the
proposed boundary alteration on the individual ratepayer in the
extended area.
F.1.2 Because of the difference in the rate between the City Council and
Counties Limerick and Clare, the time period needed to achieve
convergence differs. On the basis of the 2004 differences in the rates in
the pound, 37.4% in County Limerick and 26.3% in County Clare, the
respective convergence periods are set at 12 and 9 years respectively.
F.1.3 Assuming a 2004 rateable valuation of !100 and the general annual
rate on valuation then operative, the amount payable if this proposal
was implemented would amount to !5,699, (78% x !73.06 x !100),
compared to a County Limerick rates liability of !5,316, (!100 x
!53.16). This represents an increase of !383 or 7.2%.
Using the same valuation, !100 and the valuation adjustment for
Clare, 84%, the comparable assessments for the County Clare area of
the proposed added area !6,137 and !5,783 in respect of the city and
county assessments. This represents an increase of !354 or 6.1%.
F.1.4 The Annual Financial Statement is now prepared on an accrual

accounting basis. It will be possible to identify debtors that relate to the
extended area. It is proposed that these debtors will transfer to
Limerick City Council and that a cash payment will be made to reflect
the net realizable value of the debtor balances at that time.
F.2 ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES
F.2.1 It is anticipated that the transitional measures relating to the

administrative matters described in section E.2 above (local
government electoral ratios, local enactments and SPCs) will be
determined by the Minister for the Environment and Local
Government in similar manner to that employed in previous
boundary alterations elsewhere, adjusted to suit the Limerick
circumstances.
75
F.3 ORGANISATIONAL MEASURES
F.3.1 It is anticipated that the transitional measures relating to the

organisational matters described in section E.3 above (staffing and the
restructuring of services) will be determined by the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government in similar manner to
that employed in boundary alterations elsewhere, adjusted to suit the
Limerick circumstances.
76
SECTION G: OTHER INFORMATION AND MATERIAL
G.1 PRECEDENTS
G.1.1. Galway and Waterford Cities have both had significant boundary
extensions in the last 25 years. The most striking evidence of the
mutual and regional benefits of a boundary extension is offered by
Galway City. It is the fastest growing city in the country and has
clearly benefited significantly from the boundary extension.
G.1.2 In 1979 Waterford City was extended by agreement with Waterford

County Council. The population of Waterford City prior to the 1979
extension was 33,823. The extension added a population of 4,650
persons - some 14 per cent. The area added was 3,042 hectares (7,544
acres) - more than three times the previous area of the City (973
hectares, 2,335 acres).
G.1.3 In 1985 the boundary of Galway City was extended by agreement to

encompass an additional population of 5,324 persons, on a previous
base of 37,835 persons - an increase of 14 per cent. The increase in area
was 2,823 hectares (7,001 acres) - more than the original area of the
City (2,170 hectares, 5,382 acres).
G.1.4 Objectors to the previous proposal cite the case of the former County
Dublin (where an extensive and heavily populated local authority
areas was subdivided) as an example of the capability of a divided
urban area to function with effectiveness and convenience. In
response, Limerick City Council states that in the context of effective
and convenient local government, local authority functional areas can
be too large and complex as opposed to being too small and
fragmented. The County Dublin situation belongs to the former
category.
77
TABLES
This Page is
Intentionally left
Blank
    
        
        
        
        
       
        
        
      
       
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
      
      

TABLE 1: POPULATION CHANGE 1951 to 2006

Percentage Change
1951 1981 1991 1996 2002 2006 1951-2002 1996-2002 1981-2002 1951-2006 1996-2006 1981-2006 2002-2006
Limerick County Borough 50,828 60,736 52,083 52,039 54,058 52,539 6.35 3.88 -11.00 3.37 0.96 -13.50 -2.81
- Limerick North Rural (added 2008) 7,251
Boundary Extension Area
- Clare 2,780 5,704 6,067 3408.00 105.18
764 735.00
Boundary Extension Area
- Limerick 20,573 23690.00 33,559 34,539 * 41.66
2,063 1583.00 32,966 **
Total Boundary Extension Area 4,294 15,554 26,180 29,146 39,263 40,606 814.37 34.71 152.43 845.65 39.32 161.06 3.42
Grand Total 55,122 76,290 78,263 81,185 93,321 100,396 69.30 14.95 22.32
County Clare 81,329 87,567 90,918 94,006 103,277 110,950 26.99 9.86 17.94 36.42 18.02 26.70 7.43
County Limerick 90,411 100,925 109,873 113,003 121,281 124,265 34.14 7.33 20.17 37.44 9.97 23.13 2.46
Mid-West Region 279,577 308,212 310,368 317,069 339,626 361,028 21.48 7.11 10.19 29.13 13.86 17.14 6.30
State 2,960,593 3,443,405 3,525,719 3,626,087 3,917,203 4,239,848 32.31 8.03 13.76 43.21 16.93 23.13 8.24

 
  

      
      
      
      
      
      

TABLE 2:DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN SELECTED AREAS 1981 - 2006
Natural Estimated Natural Estimated

Increase (96 - Net Migration Increase (02 - Net Migration
1981 to 02) (96 - 02) 06) (02 - 06)
Cities 1981 1996 2002 2006 1981-2002 2006 (per'000,pa) (per'000,pa) (per'000,pa) (per'000,pa)
Dublin 544,833 481,854 495,781 506,211 -9.00 -7.09 4.06 0.51 4.85 0.05
Cork 136,344 127,187 123062 119418 -9.74 -12.41 3.14 -8.46 4.23 -8.29
Limerick 60,736 52,039 54032 52539 -11.04 -13.50 6.33 0.14 8.26 -10.14
Galway 43,210 57,241 65832 72714 52.35 68.28 8.69 14.05 10.03 7.41
Waterford 38,473 42,540 44594 45748 15.91 18.91 7.70 0.22 9.67 -2.14

  
       
       
       
       
       
       


TABLE 3: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE

Population Percentage Change Change
1981 - 1981 -
AGE COHORT 1981 1996 2002 2006 1981 1996 2002 2006 2002 2006
0 - 14 years 18,248 11,177 10475 9371 30 21.5 19.39 17.84 -42.60 -48.65
15 - 64 years 36,971 34,927 37,240 36,664 60.9 67.1 68.93 69.78 0.73 -0.83
65 years and over 5,517 5,935 6,308 6,504 9.1 11.4 11.68 12.38 14.34 17.89
Total 60,736 52,039 54,023 52,539 100 100 100.00 -11.05 -13.50

 
          
          

        
          
          
          
          
         
          
          
         
TABLE 4: CHANGE IN NATURAL INCREASE, LIMERICK C.B. 1981, 1996, 2002,2006
COMPONENTS OF NATURAL
INCREASE BIRTHS DEATHS NATURAL INCREASE
YEAR 1981 1996 2002 2006 1981 1996 2002 2006 1981 1996 2002 2006
Number of Persons 13,292 3,656 5,378 2,856 5,675 2,576 3,370 1,684 7,617 1,080 2,009 1735
Average Annual Rate per

1,000 of average population 22.5 14 15.7 13.4 9.6 9.9 10.4 7.9 12.9 4.1 6.2 5.5

  

   
    
             
             

             
             
             
             
             
             

             
             
             
             
             

TABLE 5: PERSONS AGED 15 YEARS AND OVER BY PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC STATUS LIMERICK COUNTY BOROUGH
PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
ECONOMIC CHANGE 1981- CHANGE 1996- CHANGE 1981- CHANGE 1981-
STATUS 1981 1996 2002 2006 2006 2002 1981 1996 2002 2002 Male 1981 1996 2002 2002 Female
At Work 18,767 17,168 20,648 20,911 11.42 21.80 12,439 9,801 11,568 -7.00 6,328 7,367 9,080 43.49
Looking for first
regular job 447 751 488 604 35.12 -19.57 285 492 299 4.91 162 259 189 16.67
Unemployed 2,734 3,797 2,840 2,967 8.52 -21.86 2,197 2,718 1,882 -14.34 537 1,079 958 78.40
Labour Force 21,948 21,716 23,976 24,482 11.55 12.74 14,921 13,011 13,749 -7.85 7,027 8,705 10,227 45.54
Students 4,058 5,062 5,331 5,235 29.00 3.42 1,929 2,351 2,275 17.94 2,129 2,711 3,056 43.54
Home Duties 11,325 8,212 5,779 4,755 -58.01 -42.10 6 53 288 4700.00 11,319 8,159 5,491 -51.49
Retired 2,866 3,842 4,607 5,196 81.30 35.24 1,983 2,612 2,576 29.90 883 1,230 2,031 130.01
Unable to work due
to sickness 2,119 1,882 3,233 3,014 42.24 60.15 1,340 1,274 1,602 19.55 779 608 1,631 109.37
Other 172 148 622 486 182.56 228.38 158 130 322 103.80 14 18 300 2042.86
Total 42,488 40,862 43,548 43,168 1.60 5.64 20,337 19,431 20,812 2.34 22,151 21,431 22,736 2.64
Participation Rate 51.6 53.1 55.06 56.71 3.46 3.68 73.4 67 66.06 -7.34 31.7 40.6 44.98 13.28
TABLE 6: SOCIO-ECONOMIC COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN LIMERICK CITY AND EXTENDED AREA 1991 & 2002
Percentage Percentage Percentage

Extended Area Percentage City Extended Area City 2002 City Extended Area
SOCIO-ECONOMIC City 1991 1991 Households Households City 2002 Households Households Households
GROUP Households Households 1991 1991 Population (Est) 2002 2002
Farmers, farmers
relatives and farm
managers 38 383 0.24 4.34 85 28 0.16 1.29
Other agric.occupations
and fishermen 71 102 0.45 1.16 53 18 0.10 0.13
Higher professional 595 827 3.8 9.38 2,480 827 4.59 10.29
Lower professional 816 841 5.21 9.53 4,076 1359 7.54 12.95
Self-employed (with
employees) and
managers 1,066 1,060 6.81 12.02 7,941 2,647 14.70 23.21
Salaried employees 5,054 2,643 32.3 29.97 10,581 3,527 19.59 16.73
Intermediate non-manual * * * * * * *
Other non-manual * * * * * * *
Skilled manual 2,670 1,342 17.06 15.21 6,210 2,070 11.50 8.84
Semi-skilled manual 1,050 265 6.71 3 6,385 2,128 11.82 7
Unskilled manual 1,386 391 8.86 4.43 3,601 1,200 6.67 2.29
Unknown 2,902 967 18.56 10.96 12,611 4,204 23.34 17.48
Total 15,648 8,821 100 100 54023 18008 100.00 100.00

There is no Comparable data available from the 2006 census

 
    
    
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
    
    

TABLE 7:HOUSING TENURE IN LIMERICK COUNTY BOROUGH, 1981, 1991, 2002 & 2006
CATEGORY BOROUGH, 1981 BOROUGH, 1991 BOROUGH 2002 BOROUGH 2006
Rented, Local Authority 28.93 19.47 12.31 18.05

Tenant Purchase 10.02 11.87 6.03 2.91
Rented, Unfurnished, Private 5.86 2.57 2.30 1.09
Rented, Furnished, Private 8.39 7.39 15.11 13.22
Rent Free 1.39 1.35 1.07 1.10
Owner Occupied (with mortgage) 24.91 31.92 29.81 28.46
Owner Occupied (no mortgage) 20.28 24.8 30.62 31.76
Unknown 0.22 0.61 2.76 3.41
Total 100 100 100 100


 
     
     
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
     
     

TABLE 8: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSING TENURE 2006
Category Borough Extended Area State All other cities

Rented, Local Authority 18.05 7.96 10.67 17.38
Tenant Purchase 2.91 0.47 1.61 2.49
Rented, Unfurnished, Private 1.09 0.98 1.14 1.59
Rented, Furnished, Private 13.22 16.33 8.80 17.13
Rent Free 1.10 1.00 1.48 1.10
Owner Occupied (with mortgage) 28.46 47.81 38.98 28.75
Owner Occupied (No Mortgage) 31.76 22.51 34.09 26.73
Unknown 3.41 2.94 3.24 4.83
Total 100 100 100 100

 


 


   

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Limerick North Rural ED has been absorbed
into Limerick City - March 2008

   

     
     
     
     
     
     
     


Table 10 Projected Population of the City Council Area (Based on DEHLG Population Targets 2009)
Place 2006 2011 2016 2022

Limerick City 59,790 - 77,642 86,990
Gateway (Incl
99,979 - 113,746 126,256
Shannon)
(Excl Shannon) 91,498 - 107,352 121,767
Suburbs of Limerick 31,708 - 36,104 39,266
 


  

      


      

      


      

      



      





Table 11. Revised Areas of Proposed Boundary Extension
Place Area in 2005 Application Area Post-2008 Extension

Clare 1,621.0 1,621.0
Limerick North Rural (Land Only) 2,272.2 0.0
Rest of Limerick (Land+Water) 2,257.8 2,257.8
Total Limerick County 4,830.0 2,257.8
Limerick City 2,086.0 4358.2
Water (in existing + extended area) 349 411.51*
* The original 2006 proposal excluded water from part of Limerick North Rural ED. However the 2008 extension included all
adjoining water in the river Shannon.
TABLE 12: COMMECIAL VALUATIONS IN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA 2004
TOTAL LAND AND

DISTRICT ELECTORAL DIVISIONS LAND DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL TOTAL BUILDINGS BUILDINGS
Ballycummin (part of) 3,499 49,495 82,924 132,419 135,918

Roxborough (part of) 382 367 440 807 1,188
Ballysimon (part of) 1,469 34,054 18,334 52,388 53,857
Ballyvara (part of) 744 2,508 27,917 30,425 31,169
Limerick North Rural 1,677 2,861 9,537 12,399 14,076
Limerick South Rural 2,804 31,813 8,234 40,047 42,850
Global Valuations 9,739
Additional valuations (Note) 3,214
0 0
Total Limerick DEDs 10,574 121,098 160,340 281,437 292,011
0 0
0 0
Total Clare DEDs 1,992 7,500 4,169 11,669 13,661
Total boundary extension areas 12,566 128,598 164,509 293,106 305,672
Note: Valuations for land and domestic are as per 1995 proposal.
As advised by Clare County, these are not submitted for revaluation and therefore have not been amended.
This table should be read in conjuntion with Table 13, "Other Valuations"
Source: Limerick City Council and Limerick and Clare County Councils
TABLE 12: COMMECIAL VALUATIONS IN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA 2009
TOTAL LAND AND

DISTRICT ELECTORAL DIVISIONS LAND DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL TOTAL BUILDINGS BUILDINGS
Ballycummin (part of) 3,499 49,495 108,113 157,608 161,107

Roxborough (part of) 382 367 362 729 1,111
Ballysimon (part of) 1,469 34,054 27,444 61,498 62,967
Ballyvara (part of) 744 2,508 32,593 35,102 35,845
Limerick South Rural 2,804 31,813 12,442 44,255 47,058
Gobal Valuation: Waterworks 1,700
Global Network: 11,997
0 0
Total Limerick DEDs 8,897 118,237 194,652 312,889 321,786
0 0
0 0
Total Clare DEDs 1,992 7,500 4,988 12,488 14,480
Total boundary extension areas 10,889 125,737 199,640 325,376 336,265
Note: Valuations for land and domestic are as per 1995 proposal, and Commercial Valuations based on 2009 figures.
Commercial Valuation for 2009 provided by Limerick County Council.
Valuations for Clare Co Co area were not made available by Clare Co Co: the following assumption made based to arrive at 2009 figures.
Assumption for 2009 figure: 2004 valuation of 4,169 adjusted for percentage increase in Net Effective Valuation for Clare Co Co: 2004-2009 period
Net effective valuation Clare Co Co 2004 407,100
Net effective valuation Clare Co Co 2009 487,032
Percentage increase in NEV Clare Co Co 2004-2009 19.63%
This table should be read in conjuntion with Table 13, "Other Valuations"
Note: "Global network" now includes the following: ESB, Bord Gais, BT, Eircom, Vodafone, O2, Meteor, 3G, RTE, Chorus, Irish Rail
Source: Limerick City Council and Limerick County Council, Valuation Office and DoEHLG.
AREA RATEABLE HEREDITAMENT COUNTY

LIMERICK
(!)
Ballysimon Waterworks
Ballyvara, Co. Limerick Waterworks 146.02
Ballycummin, Ballysimon,
Ballyvara, Roxborough
Co. Limerick Telecom Network 975.15
Limerick Rural District Television Cable Network 266.64
County Limerick ESB Global Network1 8,351.25
Total 9,739.06
Note: All of the above have been included in Table 12, as commercial.
No information is available on how to apportion the total ESB network valuation of !33,405.
It is assumed that 25 per cent of the county total, !8,352 lies within the proposed boundary extension.
Information on the valuation of these properties is included in Table 12 as commercial.
A separate analysis was was not available for County Clare.
Source: Rates Valuation Office

2009
AREA RATEABLE HEREDITAMENT COUNTY
LIMERICK
(increase to Limerick City
Valuation if boundary
extension granted)
(€)
Ballycummin, Ballysimon Waterworks
Ballyvara, Co. Limerick Waterworks 1,700
County Limerick Global Network 11,997
TOTAL 13,697
Information on the valuation of these properties is included in Table 12 as commercial.
Note: The Global network now includes the following:

ESB, Bord Gais, BT, Eircom, Vodafone, O2, Meteor, 3G, RTE, Chorus, Irish Rail
The revised global %'s would be 3.1% for Limerick County and 2.3% for Limerick City
As it is a % of total population - the increase to Limerick City will not equate to the decrease in Limerick County.
Source: Rates Valuation Office


Table 14: PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS IN EXTENDED CITY
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
  

Table 14 PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS IN EXTENDED CITY
Place 2006 2011 2016 2022

Limerick City 59,790 - 77,642 86,990
Suburbs of Limerick 31,708 - 36,104 39,266
City Households 22379 32486.2 40460.5

Suburbs Households 12244 15106.3 18263.3
Total 34623 47592.5 58723.7





 

 

 

 

 

 









TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO INCOME
Type of Income €
Charges for Services 5,140,020
* Grants from the Department of the Environment 5,235,395
Contributions from other local facilities -4,132,207
Recoupment of costs, agency services 4,703,734
Total 10,946,943
10,946,943
* Note: No additional cost to the Exchequer, any increases in grant income will be matched
by a reduction in grant income to Limerick and Clare County Councils
Source: Limerick City Council


 
         
         
    
       
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         



         
         
         
   
         

TABLE 16: PROJECTED IMPACT OF PROPOSED EXTENSION ON LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
EXPENDITURE INCOME
INCREASE/ INCREASE/
EXPENDITURE (2010 IF AREA (REDUCTION) IN % INCOME (2010 IF AREA (REDUCTION) IN % Net Change to
DIVISION ANNUAL BUDGET) EXTENDED EXPENDITURE Change ANNUAL BUDGET) EXTENDED INCOME Change Division
Housing & Building 16,277,881 17,849,107 1,571,226 10% 13,724,862 15,023,979 1,299,117 9% 272,109
Road Transport & Safety 10,716,850 15,077,193 4,360,343 41% 5,540,185 8,057,282 2,517,097 45% 1,843,246
Water Services 14,704,618 17,767,372 3,062,754 21% 9,762,632 12,825,386 3,062,754 31% - 0
Development Management 4,999,501 6,142,365 1,142,864 23% 1,353,701 1,670,843 317,142 23% 825,722
Environmental Services 19,114,370 20,674,249 1,559,879 8% 7,579,692 6,557,051 -1,022,641 -13% 2,582,520
Recreation & Amenity 6,241,610 7,487,316 1,245,706 20% 464,499 534,237 69,738 15% 1,175,967
Agriculture, Education, Health & Welfare 7,521,899 11,790,283 4,268,384 57% 7,356,006 11,283,568 3,927,562 53% 340,822
Miscellaneous Services 8,824,635 12,351,293 3,526,658 40% 1,362,510 2,138,683 776,173 57% 2,750,485
Total 88,401,364 109,139,178 20,737,814 23% 47,144,087 58,091,030 10,946,943 23% 9,790,871
Note: Income excludes Commercial Rates and Local Government Fund, except for Water Services. For Water Services it's assumed that Domestic Water Expenditure increase will be funded by increased Local
Government Fund allocation from DoEHLG based on model for allocation of this Fund.


:      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      


TABLE 17 EXPENDITURE AND INCOME BY DIVISION

DIVISION A
HOUSING and BUILDING
EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE INCOME INCOME
EXISTING AREA EXTENDED AREA EXISTING AREA EXTENDED

SERVICE SERVICE DESCRIPTION
AREA
€ € €
A01 Maintenance/Improvement of LA Housing Units 4,987,056 5,093,000 364,162 495,788
A02 Housing Assessment, Allocation and Transfer 526,129 559,316 16,080 18,770
A03 Housing Rent and Tenant Purchase Administration 739,304 757,876 6,824,011 6,824,601
A04 Housing Community Development Support 669,153 725,921 376,090 376,090
A05 Administration of Homeless Service 2,782,748 2,782,748 2,406,198 2,406,198
A06 Support to Housing Capital Prog. 1,471,884 1,531,884 20,366 20,366
A07 RAS Programme 3,548,547 4,343,497 3,476,407 4,271,357
A08 Housing Loans 748,956 1,118,217 230,158 599,419
A09 Housing Grants 683,484 816,027 4,712 4,712
A11 Agency & Recoupable Services 120,620 120,620 6,678 6,678
TOTAL 16,277,881 17,849,107 13,724,862 15,023,979


:      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      



DIVISION B
ROAD TRANSPORT and SAFETY

AREA
€ € € €
B01 NP Road - Maintenance and Improvement 1,058,000 1,331,236 906,388 1,179,624
B02 NS Road - Maintenance and Improvement 251,490 280,607 37,330 66,447
B03 Regional Road - Maintenance and Improvement 2,898,204 4,730,654 370,263 1,829,466
B04 Local Road - Maintenance and Improvement 853,279 1,583,785 5,485 327,698
B05 Public Lighting 1,505,659 2,468,784 2,596 3,683
B06 Traffic Management Improvement 1,044,004 1,212,683 78,503 111,372
B07 Road Safety Engineering Improvement 212,940 423,072 762,149 1,080,361
B08 Road Safety Promotion/Education 602,631 732,167 17,750 25,182
B09 Car Parking 1,149,810 1,150,810 2,717,111 2,717,111
B10 Support to Roads Capital Prog. 425,218 437,779 7,742 10,983
B11 Agency & Recoupable Services 715,615 725,615 634,868 705,356
TOTAL 10,716,850 15,077,193 5,540,185 8,057,282


: 
    
      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      


DIVISION C
WATER SERVICES

AREA
€ € € €
C01 Water Supply 7,762,196 9,775,800 5,927,941 8,091,578
C02 Waste Water Treatment 5,961,222 6,549,921 3,718,147 4,617,263
C03 Collection of Water and Waste Water Charges 662,180 1,055,289 7,125 7,125
C04 Public Conveniences 87,483 87,483 4,000 4,000
C05 Admin of Group and Private Installations - - - -
C06 Support to Water Capital Programme 204,101 271,442 4,765 4,765
C07 Agency & Recoupable Services 27,436 27,436 100,654 100,654
TOTAL 14,704,618 17,767,372 9,762,632 12,825,386


: 
    
      

    
      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      


DIVISION D
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

AREA
€ € € €
D01 Forward Planning 796,976 943,523 12,775 23,120
D02 Development Management 1,156,672 1,351,314 323,989 441,538
D03 Enforcement 190,730 339,612 4,414 34,714
D04 Industrial and Commercial Facilities 26,503 35,454 - -
D05 Tourism Development and Promotion 475,619 541,145 103 103
D06 Community and Enterprise Function 949,728 1,170,846 624,397 637,706
D07 Unfinished Housing Estates 16,218 40,194 404 917
D08 Building Control 29,601 69,824 1,678 3,928
D09 Economic Development and Promotion 121,642 246,355 2,976 3,103
D10 Property Management 447,711 452,621 320,100 325,664
D11 Heritage and Conservation Services 176,093 241,372 47,071 95,439
D12 Agency & Recoupable Services 612,008 710,108 15,794 104,612
TOTAL 4,999,501 6,142,365 1,353,701 1,670,843


: 
    
      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      


DIVISION E
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

AREA
€ € € €
E01 Landfill Operation and Aftercare 71,522 71,522 1,716 1,716
E02 Recovery & Recycling Facilities Operations 209,791 499,255 70,431 259,876
E03 Waste to Energy Facilities Operations - - - -
E04 Provision of Waste to Collection Services 796,174 861,135 17,608 17,608
E05 Litter Management 726,980 879,879 98,986 127,288
E06 Street Cleaning 3,639,005 3,961,155 83,295 91,874
E07 Waste Regulations, Monitoring and Enforcement 231,497 345,530 186,855 317,519
E08 Waste Management Planning 153,850 306,726 82,189 87,212
E09 Maintenance of Burial Grounds 658,151 876,003 456,508 553,919
E10 Safety of Structures and Places 237,798 339,821 99,617 140,297
E11 Operation of Fire Service 8,933,516 8,933,516 6,134,302 4,467,326
E12 Fire Prevention 30,552 51,301 86,794 153,454
E13 Water Quality, Air and Noise Pollution 114,177 234,324 46,264 123,837
E14 Agency & Recoupable Servicess 3,311,357 3,314,082 215,127 215,127
TOTAL 19,114,370 20,674,249 7,579,692 6,557,051


:      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      


DIVISION F
RECREATION and AMENITY

AREA
€ € € €
F01 Leisure Facilities Operations 560,716 560,716 - -
F02 Operation of Library and Archival Service 2,606,804 3,184,087 167,694 204,019
F03 Outdoor Leisure Areas Operations 1,901,378 2,340,992 47,131 55,160
F04 Community Sport and Recreational Development 67,514 151,630 - 310
F05 Operation of Arts Programme 1,105,198 1,249,891 188,674 213,748
F06 Agency & Recoupable Services - - 61,000 61,000
TOTAL 6,241,610 7,487,316 464,499 534,237


: 
    
      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      


DIVISION G
AGRICULTURE, EDUCATION, HEALTH and WELFARE

AREA
€ € € €
G01 Land Drainage Costs - 66,042 - 1,832
G02 Operation and Maintenance of Piers and Harbours - - 18,947 18,947
G03 Coastal Protection - - - -
G04 Veterinary Service 271,610 438,854 189,800 189,800
G05 Educational Support Services 7,250,289 11,285,387 7,147,259 11,072,989
G06 Agency & Recoupable Services - - - -
TOTAL 7,521,899 11,790,283 7,356,006 11,283,568


:     
      


      
      
      
      
    
  
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      


DIVISION H
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES

AREA
€ € € €
H01 Profit/Loss Machinery Account 599,906 599,906 6,620 6,620
H02 Profit/Loss Stores Account 10,280 10,280 1,623 1,623
H03 Adminstration of Rates 5,511,392 7,967,313 21,142 88,155
H04 Franchise Costs 114,468 196,967 2,680 4,165
H05 Operation of Morgue and Coroner Expenses 73,325 150,688 591 1,464
H06 Weighbridges 14,543 16,443 - -
H07 Operation of Markets and Casual Trading 5,756 5,756 60,173 60,173
H08 Malicious Damage - - - -
H09 Local Representation/Civic Leadership 1,091,924 1,392,608 14,397 14,397
H10 Motor Taxation 635,359 1,061,543 17,937 17,937
H11 Agency & Recoupable Services 767,682 949,788 1,237,347 1,944,148
TOTAL 8,824,635 12,351,293 1,362,510 2,138,683
OVERALL TOTAL DIVISION A TO H 88,401,364 109,139,178 47,144,087 58,091,030

   
    
 
   
    
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

TABLE 25: TREND IN GENERAL ANNUAL RATE ON VALUATION (i.e. Commercial Rate Multiplier)
LIMERICK CITY COUNTY

YEAR COUNCIL LIMERICK COUNTY CLARE
1999 54.72 38.17 42.37
2000 57.45 40.08 44.42
2001 61.47 43.69 47.48
2002 65.46 46.96 51.04
2003 69.78 50.67 54.62
2004 73.06 53.16 57.83
2005 75.69 56.08 61.24
2006 75.31 58.04 64.61
2007 74.56 60.22 67.61
2008 74.38 60.22 70.31
2009 76.46 60.22 72.99
2010 76.46 59.92 72.99
Average Annual % Change

1999 - 2004 5.96% 6.86% 6.42%
Average Annual % Change

1999 - 2010 3.13% 4.23% 5.09%
Difference in 2002 39.4% 28.3%

Source: Limerick City Council, Limerick County Council, Clare County Council and DoEHLG
NOTES:
Limerick City Council won an Excellence in Local Governent Award in 2007 for its "continued and unparalled reduction in commercial rates",
and was nominated by Limerick Chamber.
Limerick City Council reduced its commerical rates in 2006,2007 and 2008 to try and reduce the competitive disadvantage for Limerick City Ratepayers
versus Limerick County and Clare County Rate payers.
The difference in ARV (i.e. Rate Multiplier) can be shown graphically to illustrate the competitive gap between Limerick City versus Limerick County and Clare County
PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA
GENERAL ANNUAL
VALUATION RATE ON VALUATION RATES PAYABLE
!
County Limerick 160,340 53.16 8,523,258
County Clare 4,169 57.83 241,093
Total rates in added area levied by

Clare and Limerick 164,509 8,764,351
Rates in added area from Limerick County

to be levied by Limerick City Council in
Year 1 (see Table 29) 160,340 56.99 9,137,614
Rates in added area from Clare County to

be levied by Limerick City Council in Year
1 (see Table 29) 4,169 61.37 255,863
Total to be levied in Year 1 164,509 9,393,477

PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA
GENERAL ANNUAL
VALUATION RATE ON VALUATION RATES PAYABLE
€
County Limerick 194,652 59.92 11,663,551
County Clare 4,988 72.99 364,042
Total rates in added area levied by Clare

and Limerick 199,640 12,027,593
Rates in added area from Limerick County

to be levied by Limerick City Council in
Year 1 (see Table 29) 194,652 59.64 11,608,815
Rates in added area from Clare County to

be levied by Limerick City Council in Year 1
(see Table 29) 4,988 73.02 364,188
Total to be levied in Year 1 for Extended

area 199,640 11,973,003

TABLE 27: NET FINANCIAL IMPACT TO LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL OF PROPOSED EXTENSION
Net change in expenditure (8,711,093)

Net change in Income (1,044,291)
Change in Net Expenditure per Programme Group (see Table 16) (9,755,384)
Net change in Rate Yield (see Table 25) 9,393,477
Overall net gain/(loss) to Limerick City Council after proposed extension (361,908)

TABLE 27: NET FINANCIAL IMPACT TO LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL OF PROPOSED EXTENSION
Net change in expenditure (20,737,814)

Net change in Income 10,946,943
Change in Net Expenditure per Division (see Table 16) (9,790,871)
Net change in Rate Yield (see Table 26) 11,973,003
Overall net gain/(loss) to Limerick City Council after proposed extension 2,182,132
NOTE: Any gain arising from efficiencies etc. proposed in this paper is recommended to be used
to reduce down the Annual Rate on Valuation (ARV) for Rate Payers in the Limerick City
Metropolitan area - this is addressed in the Financial Impacts of a Boundary Extension in reply to
Limerick Local Government Committee

TABLE 28: IMPACT OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION, BY PROGRAMME GROUP, ON LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL AND CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL
Limerick County Council Clare County Council

Income gained/(lost) Expenditure saved/(incurred) Income gained/(lost) Expenditure saved/(incurred)
Programme Group
Housing & Building -76,587 169,086

Road Transportation & Safety -67,000 689,351 -61,000 241,560
Water Supply & Sewerage -1,862,741 3,093,377 436,479
Development Incentives & Control -517,649 855,000 -11,890 30,894
Environmental Protection -149,902 3,200,043 167,000
Recreation & Amenities -23,333 1,053,753
Agriculture, Education, Health & Welfare -49,593 80,614
Miscellaneous Services -4,541 954,506
-2,751,346 10,095,730 -72,890 875,933
Source: Limerick City Council (Sept 2005), Limerick County Council Response (April 2005), Clare County Council Response (April 2005)
TABLE 28: IMPACT OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION ON LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL AND CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL
Limerick County Council Clare County Council

Income gained/(lost) Expenditure saved/(incurred) Income gained/(lost) Expenditure saved/(incurred)
Division
Housing & Building -1,086,128 1,334,606 -212,989 236,621

Road Transport & Safety -2,133,346 3,657,210 -383,752 703,133
Water Services -6,133,299 6,133,299 -1,135,123 1,135,123
Development Management -270,712 871,165 -46,430 271,699
Environmental Services -673,778 2,786,006 -111,014 581,306
Recreation & Amenity -54,675 1,101,135 -15,063 144,571
Agriculture, Education, Health & Welfare -3,351,562 3,655,710 -575,999 612,674
Miscellaneous Services -706,876 3,108,289 -69,296 117,685
-14,410,377 22,647,418 -2,549,666 3,802,812


 
    
    
  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
   

TABLE 29: PERCENTAGE ANNUAL LEVEL OF CONVERGENCE IN VALUATION
ADDED AREA - VALUATION LEVIABLE FOR RATES
YEAR LIMERICK COUNTY CLARE COUNTY
1 78% 95.50%
2 80% 97.50%
3 82% 100%
4 84%
5 86%
6 88%
7 90%
8 92%
9 94%
10 96%
11 98%
12 100%

APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 5
APPENDIX 6
g






               



             


           


           
             




               





               
                

              
             




             









               
             
             
                  



            

            
              




          


              
             
              
            
             



         




           









              

               

            
           

             



             



          
             
               





            
              

            

             





















APPENDIX 7
l
Limerick
City
Council
Map 1
Proposed City Boundary Extension
Existing !
1950 !
Boundary
Proposed
New
Boundary
The Corporate seal of the City !

Council was afÞxed hereto in the !
presence of :
Mayor of Limer ick
City Manager
Director of Services
Administrative OfÞcer
Dated this day of 2005

R.TOBIN
Artwork: R.T obin 2004

APPENDIX 8
m

S.I. No. 410/1985: BOROUGH OF GALWAY (ALTERATION OF BOUNDARY) (IMPLEMENTATION) ORDER, 1985.

6,1R%2528*+2)*$/:$<
$/7(5$7,212)%281'$5<,03/(0(17$7,21

25'(5

%2528*+2)*$/:$<$/7(5$7,212)%281'$5<
,03/(0(17$7,2125'(5
7KH0LQLVWHUIRUWKH(QYLURQPHQWLQH[HUFLVHRIWKH
SRZHUVFRQIHUUHGRQKLPE\VXEVHFWLRQVDQGRI

VHFWLRQRIWKH/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW5HRUJDQLVDWLRQ$FW
1RRIKHUHE\RUGHUVDVIROORZV
Citation.

7KLV2UGHUPD\EHFLWHGDVWKH%RURXJKRI*DOZD\

$OWHUDWLRQRI%RXQGDU\,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ2UGHU

.Commencement.

7KLV2UGHUVKDOOFRPHLQWRRSHUDWLRQDVIROORZVಧ
DDUWLFOHVDQGVKDOOFRPHLQWRRSHUDWLRQRQ

WKHPDNLQJRIWKLV2UGHUDQG
EDUWLFOHVDQGDQGWKH6FKHGXOHVKDOOFRPHLQWR

RSHUDWLRQLPPHGLDWHO\SULRUWRWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKHVWGD\
RI-DQXDU\

Definitions.

,QWKLV2UGHUಧ
WKH$FWRIPHDQVWKH/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW

5HRUJDQLVDWLRQ$FW
WKHDGGHGDUHDPHDQVWKHDUHDGHVFULEHGLQWKH)RXUWK
6FKHGXOHWRWKH$FWRI
WKH%RURXJKPHDQVWKH%RURXJKRI*DOZD\HVWDEOLVKHG

E\WKH/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW*DOZD\$FW
WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQPHDQVWKH0D\RU$OGHUPHQDQG

%XUJHVVHVRIWKH%RURXJK
WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOPHDQVWKHFRXQFLORIWKHFRXQW\RI

*DOZD\
WKH0LQLVWHUPHDQVWKH0LQLVWHUIRUWKH(QYLURQPHQW

Interim payments.

3HQGLQJWKHPDNLQJRIDQDJUHHGRUDFRPSXOVRU\
DGMXVWPHQWSXUVXDQWWRSDUDJUDSKRIWKH6FKHGXOHWRWKLV
2UGHUWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQVKDOOSD\WRWKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLOE\ZD\RILQWHULPSD\PHQWVRQDFFRXQWVXFK

DPRXQWVLQUHVSHFWRIWKHORFDOILQDQFLDO\HDUDQG
VXEVHTXHQW\HDUVDVPD\DSSHDUUHDVRQDEOHKDYLQJUHJDUG
WRWKHSURYLVLRQVRIVXESDUDJUDSKDRIWKHVDLGSDUDJUDSK

7KHDPRXQWRIWKHLQWHULPSD\PHQWVWREHSDLGE\
WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQWRWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOSXUVXDQWWR
VXEDUWLFOHRIWKLVDUWLFOHVKDOOEHDVDJUHHGEHWZHHQWKH
WZRDXWKRULWLHVRULQGHIDXOWRIDJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHDV
GHWHUPLQHGE\WKH0LQLVWHU
$QDPRXQWDVDJUHHGRUGHWHUPLQHGSXUVXDQWWRVXE
DUWLFOHRIWKLVDUWLFOHVKDOOEHLQFOXGHGLQWKHHVWLPDWHWR

EHDGRSWHGE\WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQIRUWKHILQDQFLDO
\HDUDQGIRUHDFKVXEVHTXHQW\HDU

Effect of Order.

2QWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIWKLVDUWLFOHWKHERXQGDU\
DOWHUDWLRQHIIHFWHGE\VHFWLRQRIWKH$FWRIVKDOO
LQDGGLWLRQWRKDYLQJHIIHFWIRUWKHSXUSRVHVVSHFLILHGLQ
WKDWVHFWLRQKDYHHIIHFWIRUDOORWKHUSXUSRVHVDQG
DFFRUGLQJO\WKHDGGHGDUHDVKDOOEHGHWDFKHGIRUDOOVXFK
SXUSRVHVIURPWKH&RXQW\+HDOWK'LVWULFWRI*DOZD\DQG
IURPWKHMXULVGLFWLRQDQGSRZHUVRIWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLODQG
EHDGGHGWRWKH%RURXJKDQGRQDQGIURPVXFK
FRPPHQFHPHQWWKHVDLGDUHDVKDOOEHLQFOXGHGLQDQG
IRUPSDUWRIWKH%RURXJKIRUWKHVDLGSXUSRVHV

Application of Schedule.

7KHSURYLVLRQVFRQWDLQHGLQWKH6FKHGXOHWRWKLV2UGHU
VKDOODSSO\DQGKDYHHIIHFWLQUHODWLRQWRWKHERXQGDU\
DOWHUDWLRQUHIHUUHGWRLQDUWLFOH
6&+('8/(
3UHSDUDWLRQRI0DSV
D$VVRRQDVPD\EHDIWHUWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRI

DUWLFOHVDQGRIWKLV2UGHUWKH&RPPLVVLRQHURI
9DOXDWLRQVKDOOSUHSDUHLQTXDGUXSOLFDWHDPDSGUDZQWR
VXFKFRQYHQLHQWVFDOHDQGLQVXFKFRQYHQLHQWQXPEHURI
VHSDUDWHVKHHWVDVKHVKDOOWKLQNILWVKRZLQJWKHDGGHG
DUHDDQGWKHDOWHUHGERXQGDULHVRIWKH%RURXJKDQGZKHQ
VXFKPDSVKDYHEHHQSUHSDUHGE\WKHVDLG&RPPLVVLRQHU
KHVKDOOVHDOHDFKVXFKPDSDQGVKDOODVVRRQDVPD\EH
WKHUHDIWHUGHSRVLWWKHPDVIROORZVQDPHO\RQHRIWKHPLQ
WKHSULQFLSDORIILFHRIWKHVDLG&RPPLVVLRQHUDQRWKHULQWKH
RIILFHVRIWKHERURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQRWKHULQWKHRIILFHVRI
WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLODQGDQRWKHULQWKHRIILFHVRIWKH
0LQLVWHU
E(YHU\PDSGHSRVLWHGSXUVXDQWWRVXESDUDJUDSKD

RIWKLVSDUDJUDSKLQWKHSULQFLSDORIILFHRIWKH&RPPLVVLRQHU
RI9DOXDWLRQRULQWKHRIILFHVRIWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQRU
WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOVKDOOEHUHWDLQHGLQWKHRIILFHRURIILFHV
LQZKLFKLWLVVRGHSRVLWHGDQGHDFKVXFKPDSRUWUXH
FRSLHVWKHUHRIVKDOOEHRSHQIRULQVSHFWLRQIUHHRIFKDUJH
DWWKHRIILFHRURIILFHVLQZKLFKLWLVVRGHSRVLWHGE\DQ\
SHUVRQDWDQ\WLPHDWZKLFKVXFKRIILFHRURIILFHVLVRUDUH
RSHQIRUWKHWUDQVDFWLRQRISXEOLFEXVLQHVVDQGLWVKDOOEH
ODZIXOIRUWKHVDLG&RPPLVVLRQHUWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQ
RUWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOWRSUHSDUHDQGVXSSO\WRDQ\SHUVRQ
UHTXHVWLQJWKHVDPHDWUXHFRS\RIWKHPDSVRGHSRVLWHG
ZLWKKLPRUWKHPRUDQ\SDUWLFXODUSDUWWKHUHRIDQGWR
FKDUJHIRUVXFKFRS\VXFKVXPDVKHZLWKWKHFRQVHQWRI
WKH0LQLVWHUIRU)LQDQFHRUWKH\PD\IL[
F,WVKDOOEHWKHGXW\RIWKH&RPPLVVLRQHURI

9DOXDWLRQWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQGWKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLOUHVSHFWLYHO\ZKHQHYHUUHTXLUHGVRWRGRE\DQ\
&RXUWRI-XVWLFHWRSUHSDUHDQGSURGXFHWRVXFK&RXUWD
WUXHFRS\RIWKHPDSGHSRVLWHGZLWKKLPRUWKHPXQGHUWKLV
SDUDJUDSKRUDQ\VSHFLILHGSDUWWKHUHRIDQGWRYHULI\VXFK
FRS\WRVXFK&RXUWE\WKHRDWKRIRQHRIKLVRUWKHLU
RIILFHUVDQGXSRQDQ\VXFKFRS\EHLQJVRSURGXFHGDQG
YHULILHGWRVXFK&RXUWVXFK&RXUWVKDOOUHFHLYHVXFKFRS\
LQHYLGHQFHDQGWKHUHXSRQVXFKFRS\VKDOOXQOHVVWKH
FRQWUDU\LVVKRZQEHVXIILFLHQWHYLGHQFHRIWKHDGGHGDUHD
DQGWKHDOWHUHGERXQGDULHVRIWKH%RURXJKLQVRIDUDVWKH
VDPHDUHVKRZQRQVXFKFRS\QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJDQ\
GLVFUHSDQF\EHWZHHQVXFKFRS\DQGWKHGHVFULSWLRQ
FRQWDLQHGLQWKH)RXUWK6FKHGXOHWRWKH$FWRIRUDQ\
DPELJXLW\RUXQFHUWDLQW\LQVXFKGHVFULSWLRQRULQWKH
DSSOLFDWLRQWKHUHRI
%\HODZVHWFLQWKHDGGHGDUHD
D6XEMHFWWRVXESDUDJUDSKERIWKLVSDUDJUDSKHYHU\

E\HODZUXOHDQGUHJXODWLRQODZIXOO\PDGHDQGHQIRUFHDEOH
E\WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOLQWKHDGGHGDUHDRUDQ\SDUW
WKHUHRIDQGZKLFKZDVLQIRUFHLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKH
FRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHVDQGRIWKLV2UGHUVKDOORQ
DQGIURPWKHVDLGFRPPHQFHPHQWFRQWLQXHLQIRUFHDQG
KDYHHIIHFWLQWKHDGGHGDUHDRUSDUWWKHUHRIDVLILWZHUHD
E\HODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQDVPD\EHDSSURSULDWHPDGHE\
WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQGZKLFKFDPHLQWRRSHUDWLRQRQ
WKHVDLGFRPPHQFHPHQWLQUHVSHFWRIWKHDUHDRUVRPXFK
RIWKHDUHDDVLVZLWKLQWKHDGGHGDUHDIRUDQGLQUHVSHFWRI
ZKLFKWKHVDPHZDVRULJLQDOO\PDGHDQGDFFRUGLQJO\HYHU\
VXFKE\HODZUXOHDQGUHJXODWLRQPD\EHFRQWLQXHG
DPHQGHGYDULHGRUUHYRNHGDQGDQ\SHQDOW\DQGIRUIHLWXUH
DULVLQJWKHUHXQGHURQRUDIWHUWKHVDLGFRPPHQFHPHQWLQ
WKHDGGHGDUHDPD\EHUHFRYHUHGRURWKHUZLVHHQIRUFHGE\
WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQLQWKHOLNHPDQQHUDQGDVIXOO\DV
WKHVDPHFRXOGKDYHEHHQFRQWLQXHGDPHQGHGYDULHG
UHYRNHGUHFRYHUHGRURWKHUZLVHHQIRUFHGE\WKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLOKDGWKLV2UGHUQRWEHHQPDGH
E1RE\HODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQPHQWLRQHGLQ

VXESDUDJUDSKDRIWKLVSDUDJUDSKLQVRIDUDVLWLV
FRQWLQXHGLQIRUFHE\WKHVDLGVXESDUDJUDSKDVKDOOVR
FRQWLQXHLQIRUFHDIWHUWKHH[SLUDWLRQRIWKHSHULRGRIWZR
\HDUVEHJLQQLQJRQWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHVDQG

RIWKLV2UGHUXQOHVVZLWKLQWKDWSHULRGWKH%RURXJK
&RUSRUDWLRQE\UHVROXWLRQGHFODUHVWKDWWKHE\HODZUXOH
RUUHJXODWLRQVKDOOLQVRIDUDVLWLVFRQWLQXHGLQIRUFHE\WKH
VDLGVXESDUDJUDSKDFRQWLQXHLQIRUFHDIWHUWKHH[SLUDWLRQ
RIWKDWSHULRG
F1RE\HODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQLQIRUFHLQWKH%RURXJK
LPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHVDQG
RIWKLV2UGHUVKDOODSSO\RUEHH[WHQGHGWRWKHDGGHGDUHD
E\YLUWXHRQO\RIWKHLQFOXVLRQRIVXFKDUHDLQWKH%RURXJK
E\WKLV2UGHUEXWWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQPD\DWDQ\WLPH
ZLWKLQWKHSHULRGRIWZR\HDUVIURPWKHVDLG
FRPPHQFHPHQWE\UHVROXWLRQH[WHQGRUDSSO\DQ\VXFK
E\HODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQWRWKHDGGHGDUHDRUWRDQ\SDUW
WKHUHRIDQGXSRQDQ\H[WHQVLRQRUDSSOLFDWLRQEHLQJPDGH
XQGHUWKLVVXESDUDJUDSKDQ\E\HODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQ
FRQWLQXHGLQIRUFHLQWKHDGGHGDUHDRULQDQ\SDUWWKHUHRI
E\VXESDUDJUDSKDRIWKLVSDUDJUDSKDQGZKLFKLV
LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHE\HODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQWRZKLFKWKH
UHOHYDQWUHVROXWLRQRIWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQUHODWHVVKDOO
FHDVHWRKDYHHIIHFWLQWKHDGGHGDUHDRUDVPD\EH
DSSURSULDWHLQDQ\VXFKSDUW
5HVROXWLRQVHWFUHODWLQJWRWKHDGGHGDUHD
D(YHU\UHVROXWLRQSDVVHGRUGHUPDGHDQGQRWLFH

VHUYHGE\WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOEHIRUHWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRI
DUWLFOHVDQGRIWKLV2UGHULQUHODWLRQWRWKHDGGHGDUHD
RUDQ\SDUWWKHUHRIRUDQ\WKLQJGRQHRUWREHGRQHWKHUHLQ
DQGWKHRSHUDWLRQHIIHFWRUWHUPRIZKLFKKDGQRWFHDVHG
RUH[SLUHGEHIRUHWKHVDLGFRPPHQFHPHQWRQDQGIURPWKH
VDLGFRPPHQFHPHQWVKDOOLQVRIDUDVLWUHODWHVWRWKH

DGGHGDUHDRUDQ\SDUWWKHUHRIRUDQ\WKLQJGRQHRUWREH
GRQHWKHUHLQFRQWLQXHLQIRUFHDQGKDYHHIIHFWDVLILWZHUH
DUHVROXWLRQSDVVHGDQRUGHUPDGHRUDQRWLFHVHUYHGE\
WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQRQWKHGDWHRQZKLFKWKHVDPH
ZDVDFWXDOO\SDVVHGPDGHRUVHUYHGE\WKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLODQGDVLIRQWKHVDLGGDWHWKHDGGHGDUHDKDGEHHQ
LQFOXGHGLQWKH%RURXJK
EL$Q\WKLQJGRQHRUWUHDWHGE\YLUWXHRIDQ\

HQDFWPHQWDVKDYLQJEHHQGRQHE\
WRRULQUHODWLRQWR

WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOEHIRUHWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHV
DQGRIWKLV2UGHULQUHODWLRQWRWKHDGGHGDUHDLQWKH
H[HUFLVHRUSHUIRUPDQFHRIRUE\WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLORIDQ\
RILWVSRZHUVIXQFWLRQVRUGXWLHVVKDOOEHWUHDWHGDVKDYLQJ
EHHQGRQHE\WRRULQUHODWLRQWRWKH%RURXJK
&RUSRUDWLRQ
(ii) Any reference to the County Council in a document
referred to in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph shall be
construed as a reference to the Borough Corporation.
F,QVXESDUDJUDSKERIWKLVSDUDJUDSKWKLQJ

LQFOXGHVWKHIROORZLQJಧ
(i) any written agreement or other instrument in writing or
any determination or declaration made by or on behalf of,

or to be treated as having been made by or on behalf of
the County Council,
(ii) any direction given, or to be treated as having been

given, by or to the County Council,
(iii) any licence, permission, consent, approval, exemption
or relaxation granted or given, or to be treated as having
been granted or given, by or to the County Council,
(iv) any application, proposal or objection made, or to be

treated as having been made, by or to the County Council,
(v) any condition or requirement imposed, or to be treated

as having been imposed, by or on the County Council.
$SSOLFDWLRQDQGDGDSWDWLRQRIORFDOHQDFWPHQWV
(YHU\ORFDO$FWLQIRUFHLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKH
FRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHVDQGRIWKLV2UGHULQRULQ
UHODWLRQWRWKH%RURXJKVKDOOH[WHQGWRWKHDGGHGDUHDDQG

VKDOORQDQGIURPWKHVDLGFRPPHQFHPHQWEHFRQVWUXFWHG
DQGKDYHHIIHFWZLWKVXFKPRGLILFDWLRQVDVPD\EH
QHFHVVDU\WRJLYHHIIHFWWRWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKLV2UGHU
'HYHORSPHQW3ODQ
D7KHGHYHORSPHQWSODQIRUWKH&RXQW\RI*DOZD\DV

LWH[LVWHGLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHV
DQGRIWKLV2UGHULQVRIDUDVLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHVXFK

FRPPHQFHPHQWLWKDGHIIHFWDVUHJDUGVWKHDGGHGDUHD
VKDOORQDQGDIWHUVXFKFRPPHQFHPHQWFRQWLQXHWRKDYH
VXFKHIIHFWSHQGLQJWKHPDNLQJRIDQHZGHYHORSPHQWSODQ
E\WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQRUWKHPDNLQJE\WKH%RURXJK
&RUSRUDWLRQDVUHJDUGVWKDWDUHDRIDYDULDWLRQRIWKH
GHYHORSPHQWSODQIRUWKHERURXJK
E,QWKLVSDUDJUDSKGHYHORSPHQWSODQPHDQVD

GHYHORSPHQWSODQZLWKLQWKHPHDQLQJRIWKH/RFDO

*RYHUQPHQW3ODQQLQJDQG'HYHORSPHQW$FWVWR

+RXUVRI7UDGLQJ2UGHUV
1RWKLQJLQWKLV2UGHUVKDOOEHFRQVWUXHGDVDIIHFWLQJDQ\
RUGHUPDGHE\WKH0LQLVWHUIRU,QGXVWU\7UDGH&RPPHUFH

DQG7RXULVPXQGHUWKH6KRSV+RXUVRI7UDGLQJ$FW
1RRI
)LQDQFLDO$GMXVWPHQWVEHWZHHQ&RUSRUDWLRQDQG&RXQW\

&RXQFLO
D6XEMHFWWRVXESDUDJUDSKVIDQGJRIWKLV

SDUDJUDSKWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQGWKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLOPD\IURPWLPHWRWLPHDVRFFDVLRQUHTXLUHVPDNH
DQHTXLWDEOHDGMXVWPHQWKHUHDIWHULQWKLV6FKHGXOHUHIHUUHG
WRDVDQDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWLQUHJDUGWRDQ\PDWWHURU
WKLQJUHTXLULQJWREHDGMXVWHGEHWZHHQWKHPLQ
FRQVHTXHQFHRIWKHERXQGDU\DOWHUDWLRQUHIHUUHGWRLQ
DUWLFOHRIWKLV2UGHUDQGQRWRWKHUZLVHSURYLGHGIRUE\WKLV
2UGHUDQGZLWKRXWSUHMXGLFHWRWKHJHQHUDOLW\RIWKH
IRUHJRLQJPD\LQSDUWLFXODUPDNHDQDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWLQ
UHJDUGWRDOORUDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJಧ
(i) any net loss of revenue, actual or prospective, which is
or may be incurred by the County Council in consequence
of the said boundary alteration;
(ii) property, whether real or personal (including choses-
in-action), vested in or belonging to or held in trust for the

County Council and wholly or partly situate in or relating
to the added area or any particular part thereof;
(iii) debts (including mortgage debts), charges created by

statute and other liabilities (including unliquidated
amounts, unliquidated damages arising from torts or
breaches of contract and accruing or prospective
liabilities), due and unpaid, or incurred and undischarged,
by the County Council and relating wholly or in part to
the added area (or any particular part thereof).
E$QDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWLQUHODWLRQWRSURSHUW\PD\
SURYLGHIRUWKHUHWHQWLRQRIVXFKSURSHUW\E\WKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLORUIRUWKHWUDQVIHURIVXFKSURSHUW\WRWKH%RURXJK
&RUSRUDWLRQRUIRUWKHMRLQWXVHURIVXFKSURSHUW\E\WKH
%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQGWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLODQGPD\DOVR
SURYLGHIRUWKHSD\PHQWRIPRQH\E\DVLQJOHSD\PHQWRU
LQWZRRUPRUHLQVWDOPHQWVE\RUWRWKH%RURXJK
&RUSRUDWLRQWRRUE\WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLORQDFFRXQWRIWKH
UHWHQWLRQWUDQVIHURUMRLQWXVHURIVXFKSURSHUW\
F$QDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWLQUHODWLRQWRDQ\GHEWRU

RWKHUOLDELOLW\PD\SURYLGHIRUWKHZKROHRIVXFKGHEWRU
OLDELOLW\EHLQJERUQHE\WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQRUIRUWKH
ZKROHRIVXFKGHEWRUOLDELOLW\EHLQJERUQHE\WKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLOH[FHSWLQWKHFDVHRIPRUWJDJHGHEWVRUIRUWKH
DSSRUWLRQPHQWRIWKHOLDELOLW\IRUVXFKGHEWRUOLDELOLW\
EHWZHHQWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQGWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLO
DQ\PD\DOVRSURYLGHIRUWKHSD\PHQWRIPRQH\E\DVLQJOH
SD\PHQWRULQWZRRUPRUHLQVWDOPHQWVWRRUE\WKH
%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQE\RUWRWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOLQUHVSHFW
RIVXFKGHEWRUOLDELOLW\
G6XEMHFWWRVXESDUDJUDSKVIDQGJRIWKLV

SDUDJUDSKZKHQHYHUWKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQDQGWKH
&RXQW\&RXQFLOIDLOWRDJUHHXSRQDQHTXLWDEOHDGMXVWPHQW
RIDQ\PDWWHURUWKLQJZKLFKZHUHWKH\DJUHHGZRXOGEH
WKHVXEMHFWRIDQDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWXQGHUWKLVSDUDJUDSK
WKH0LQLVWHUVKDOOXSRQWKHUHTXHVWRIHLWKHUWKH%RURXJK
&RUSRUDWLRQRUWKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOPDNHDQDGMXVWPHQW
KHUHDIWHULQWKLV6FKHGXOHUHIHUUHGWRDVDFRPSXOVRU\
DGMXVWPHQWRIVXFKPDWWHURUWKLQJDQGPD\E\VXFK
DGMXVWPHQWPDNHDQ\SURYLVLRQLQUHODWLRQWRVXFKPDWWHURU
WKLQJZKLFKFRXOGXQGHUWKLVSDUDJUDSKKDYHEHHQSURYLGHG
IRUE\DQDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQW
H(YHU\DJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWDQGHYHU\FRPSXOVRU\

DGMXVWPHQWVKDOOKDYHHIIHFWDFFRUGLQJWRLWVWHUPVDQG
VKDOOEHILQDODQGFRQFOXVLYHDQGDFFRUGLQJO\VKDOOEH
HQIRUFHDEOHE\WKH%RURXJK&RUSRUDWLRQRUWKH&RXQW\
&RXQFLODJDLQVWWKHRWKHURIWKHP
I,QPDNLQJDQDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWRUDFRPSXOVRU\
DGMXVWPHQWUHJDUGVKDOOEHKDGWRDQ\SD\PHQWVPDGH
SXUVXDQWWRDUWLFOHRIWKLV2UGHU
J,QPDNLQJDQDJUHHGDGMXVWPHQWRUDFRPSXOVRU\

DGMXVWPHQWUHJDUGVKDOOEHKDGWRSDUDJUDSKRIWKLV
6FKHGXOH
5DWHVDQG&KDUJHV
$OOUDWHVDQGRWKHUFKDUJHVZKLFKLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKH
FRPPHQFHPHQWRIDUWLFOHVDQGRIWKLV2UGHUZHUHGXH
DQGSD\DEOHRUZHUHDFFUXLQJGXHLQUHVSHFWRIWKHORFDO
ILQDQFLDO\HDURUDQ\SUHYLRXVORFDOILQDQFLDO\HDUWR
WKH&RXQW\&RXQFLOZKHWKHULQUHVSHFWRIDKHUHGLWDPHQW
LQWKHDGGHGDUHDRURWKHUZLVHVKDOORQDQGIURPVXFK
FRPPHQFHPHQWFRQWLQXHWREHGXHDQGEHSD\DEOHDQGWR
DFFUXHGXHDVLIWKLV2UGHUKDGQRWEHHQPDGHDQGPD\EH
FROOHFWHGDQGUHFRYHUHGDFFRUGLQJO\
/LPLWDWLRQRQ5DWHV
D7KLVSDUDJUDSKDSSOLHVWRKHUHGLWDPHQWVLQWKH

DGGHGDUHDZKLFKZHUHRUZHUHOLDEOHWREHDVVHVVHGZLWK
WKHFRXQW\UDWHIRUWKHORFDOILQDQFLDO\HDU
E)RUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKHDVVHVVPHQWDQGOHY\LQJRI

WKHPXQLFLSDOUDWHRQDKHUHGLWDPHQWWRZKLFKWKLV
SDUDJUDSKDSSOLHVWKHIROORZLQJSURYLVLRQVVKDOODSSO\LQ
HDFKRIWKHWHQORFDOILQDQFLDO\HDUVQH[WIROORZLQJ
(i) where the valuation of the hereditament is the same as
or less than the standard valuation, the valuation shall be
reduced to the proportion, specified in the Table to this

paragraph for the particular year, of the valuation on
which the municipal rate would otherwise fall to be
assessed, and
(ii) where the valuation of the hereditament is greater than
the standard valuation, the amount of the valuation which
is equal to the standard valuation shall be reduced to the

proportion, specified in the Table to this paragraph for the
particular year, of the valuation on which the municipal
rate would otherwise fall to be assessed.
F,QWKLVSDUDJUDSKಧ
"valuation" means the valuation under the Valuation Acts;

"the standard valuation" means, in relation to a
hereditament to which this paragraph applies, the
valuation of such hereditament included in the revised

valuation list received by the County Council from the
Commissioner of Valuation for the local financial year
1985.
7$%/(
/LPLWDWLRQVRQ0XQLFLSDO5DWH

Ten years during which this Order is in force next Proportion of Valuation (expressed in
following 1985 hundredths)
1986 81
1987 83
1988 85
1989 87
1990 89
1991 91
1992 93
1993 95
1994 97
1995 99
*,9(1XQGHUWKH2IILFLDO6HDORIWKH0LQVWHUIRUWKH(QYLURQPHQWWKLV
WKGD\RI'HFHPEHU
/,$0.$9$1$*+
0LQLVWHUIRUWKH(QYLURQPHQW
(;3/$1$725<127(
7KLVRUGHUEULQJVWKHDOWHUDWLRQRIWKHERXQGDU\RIWKH%RURXJKRI*DOZD\HIIHFWHGE\
VHFWLRQRIWKH/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW5HRUJDQLVDWLRQ$FWLQWRRSHUDWLRQIRUDOO
SXUSRVHVDQGPDNHVVXSSOHPHQWDU\SURYLVLRQVLQWKDWUHJDUG

6RXUFH,ULVK6WDWXWH%RRN'DWDEDVH

© Government of Ireland. Oireachtas Copyright Material is reproduced with the permission of the Houses of the Oireachtas
APPENDIX 9
m
City Boundary
Extension
Public Opinion Survey Results
500 households, all
living in the extension
area were interviewed
on their opinions about
a boundary extension
These are their views ...
The First Question;
How important is Local
Administration to you?
Very important (4)
Don’t know/no opinion Fairly important (3)
1% Not very important (2)
Not at all important (1)
Don’t know/no opinion
Very important (4)

15% 21%
55%
30%
Fairly important (3)

34%
Second Question; In Which
County do you Live?
Limerick County
30% County Clare
Limerick City
Don’t know
Don’t know
3%
Limerick City
27%
60%
10%
Third Question:Who Administers
the area in which you live?
Limerick County
County Clare
Don’t know
11%
Don’t know
10%
13%
66%
Fourth Question: Would you
prefer One Administration or
three (as at present)?
Prefer single authority
Prefer three as at present
40%
Prefer single authority

60%
Fifth Question: Which Authority
would you prefer to be
Administered by (if you had a
choice)?
Prefer Limerick County Council
Prefer Clare County Council
Change to Limerick City Council
Makes no difference
Makes no difference
37% 36%
43%
7%
Change to Limerick City Council

19%
Sixth Question: Under Limerick
City Council would things be ?...
Would be better
Would stay the same
Would be worse
19%
Would be better
21%
81%
Would stay the same

60%
Seventh Question: Would you vote
for a Dail candidate if that
candidate supports the extension?
More likely to vote for candidate
Make no difference to my vote
Less likely to vote for candidate
21%
More likely to vote for candidate
21%
80%
Make no difference to my vote

59%
If the question were to
be determined by
Plebicite, the motion
would be carried by a
majority.
End

Complete Doc 19 Oct 05 Annotated

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Complete Doc 19 Oct 05 Annotated

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL

Incorporating Updated Material from April 2010

Prepared in accordance with the

LIMERICK COUNTY CLARE COUNTY

Present when the Corporate

DIRECTOR OF SERVICES MAYOR OF LIMERICK

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CITY MANAGER

SECTION A REASONS FOR PROPOSAL

A.1 Effective and Convenient Local Government 4

SECTION B PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT AREA

B.1 Existing Boundaries 35

SECTION C SOCIO-ECONOMIC MATTERS

SECTION D ESTIMATED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR PROPOSER

SECTION E ADJUSTMENTS OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS PROPOSED

E.1 Financial Matters 54

SECTION F TRANSITIONAL MEASURES

F.1 Financial Measures 75

SECTION G OTHER INFORMATION AND MATERIAL

TABLE 1: POPULATION CHANGE 1951 to 2002

TABLE 2: DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN SELECTED AREAS 1981 - 2002

TABLE 3: CHANGING DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE

TABLE 4: CHANGE IN NATURAL INCREASE, LIMERICK CITY 1981,

TABLE 5: PERSONS AGED 15 YEARS AND OVER BY PRINCIPAL

TABLE 6: SOCIO-ECONOMIC COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN

TABLE 7: HOUSING TENURE IN LIMERICK CITY, 1981,1991,AND 2002

TABLE 8: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSING TENURE 1991 AND

TABLE 9: PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA TOWNLANDS

TABLE 10: PROJECTED POPULATION OF LIMERICK CITY 2002 TO 2022

TABLE 11: AREA OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION

TABLE 12: TOTAL VALUATIONS IN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY

TABLE 13: OTHER VALUATIONS, BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA

TABLE 14: PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS IN PROPOSED

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO INCOME

TABLE 16: PROJECTED IMPACT OF PROPOSED EXTENSION ON LIMERICK

TABLE 17: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 1

TABLE 18: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 2

TABLE 19: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 3

TABLE 20: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 4

TABLE 21: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 5

TABLE 22: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 6

TABLE 23: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 7

TABLE 24: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAMME GROUP 8

TABLE 25: TREND IN GENERAL ANNUAL RATE ON VALUATION

TABLE 26: RATES INCOME 2004 IN THE BOUNDARY EXTENSION AREA

TABLE 27: NET FINANCIAL IMPACT TO LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL OF

TABLE 28: IMPACT OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXTENSION ON

TABLE 29: PERCENTAGE ANNUAL LEVEL OF CONVERGENCE IN

1. RESOLUTION OF LIMERICK CORPORATION DATED

2. LIMERICK CITY : HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT

3. THE 1950 BOUNDARY EXTENSION

4. THE 1974 BOUNDARY PETITION

5. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EVENTS

7. PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT AREA

8. STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 410 OF 1985

9. SURVEY OF OPINIONS OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION

This document comprises an amended proposal, updated to include financial and

Area Pre Area Post % Increase In Population

• That the extending of administrative boundaries is required in urban areas in

• That the Town of Killarney with a population of 12,087 persons encompasses

Alterations to local authority boundaries are made pursuant to the Local

1. STRONG CITIES MAKE STRONG REGIONS

• Social imbalance resulting from rural depopulation is universally

2. CITY GOVERNANCE SHOULD BE UNITARY AND REPRESENTATIVE