As I indicated in my reply to Question No. 275 on 30 June, the Valuation Office is currently undertaking a systematic programme of revaluing, for rates purposes, all industrial and commercial properties in the State on a rating authority basis. The purpose of the revaluation is to bring more equity, fairness and transparency into the local authority rating system and to distribute the commercial rates liability more equitably between ratepayers based on up-to-date rental values. Following revaluation, there will generally be a much closer and uniform relationship between the rental value of a property and the commercial rates liability which applies to that property. In essence, the exercise aims to ensure that each ratepayer bears a fair share of the rates burden relative to the value of the property that they occupy.
As part of the national revaluation programme, the Valuation Office published a new valuation list for the Limerick City and County Council rating authority area on 31 December 2014.
Section 56 of the Valuation Act, 2001, as amended, provides that the commercial rates income of a local authority is capped in the year following revaluation, limiting the reasons for any increase in total local authority income from rates to the following: Inflation; Extensions to existing properties; and New properties coming on stream. As a result, the revaluation of commercial properties in a local authority area is essentially a revenue neutral exercise concerned with the redistribution of the rates liability between ratepayers by reference to the net annual value of the commercial property they occupy.
As a result of Section 56 of the Valuation Act, 2001, as amended, and the shift in relative values of various property types and uses between the late 1980's and the valuation date of 1 March 2012, some 65% of ratepayers in the Limerick City and County Council rating authority area have had a reduction in their rates liability while 35% have had an increase. This is more or less in line with the outcome in other recently revalued rating authority areas.
The trend of change in liability occurred across a range of property uses and is not confined to the categories of property to which the Deputy refers. The question of the Commissioner adopting a different approach to the valuation of certain categories of property which receive public support does not arise as all valuations determined by the Valuation Office in all sectors are carried out solely in accordance with the valuation principles prescribed by section 48 of the Valuation Act 2001. Government policy in relation to support of the areas mentioned does not play any part in the determination of values under the Act.
Revaluation is not a new policy and is being carried out under legislation enacted in 2001. The Commissioner of Valuation is independent in the exercise of his function under the Valuation Acts, 2001 to 2015 and the carrying out of valuations for rating purposes is his sole prerogative. The Act does not accord me as Minister any function in this regard. I would not be aware of the values emerging for different sectors before the final valuation list is published and the legislation provides for an extensive appeals process. The carrying out of a Regulatory Impact Assessment does not therefore arise.
