Lafarge Mining Operation a Loser for Sandoval County and Placitas

by Stephen Vaughan

Lafarge has recently been telling all who would listen that they no longer intend to honor the various written statements of intent by their predecessor operators to end mining operations in 2015. Indeed, they have explicitly said they are negotiating a new lease, and intend to mine to the perimeter of the leasehold.

As residents of Placitas, we know the traffic, the noise, the dust their operations create.

But isn’t there also economic benefit to Sandoval County from the mining?

In a word, no.

As we all see the trucks clogging the intersection of 25 and 165, can’t we take solace in the gross receipts taxes they are paying into the coffers of the County?

No. The trucks are taking the gravel to Albuquerque for the most part, where the gross receipts taxes are paid. Other than gravel that may be delivered here, the County sees not a dime of GRT.

What about property taxes paid by the owners? As best we can determine, the owner paid approximately $100,000 last year in property taxes on the entire mining site. The comparison to the taxes that would be paid instead as a result of a conforming use, for example homes, is striking. Assuming a hypothetical 500 homes on the 1000-acre site (after gross receipts taxes paid by the developer, the builders, and the contractors), each home would pay, let’s estimate, $5,000 a year in taxes, or $2.5 million.

And then there is the money that would be spent by those 500 families in Sandoval County, with the resulting benefit to local businesses and the County itself.

One must not forget, too, the reduction in property values resulting from the mining operation: Studies have shown gravel pits may reduce surrounding property values ranging from 30% contiguous to the mine, down to 10% two miles away. Property tax assessment appeals have already succeeded on Placitas homes near the mine, based solely on the presence of the mine. We estimate the loss in County property tax revenue will eventually range from $250,000 to $750,000.

And finally there is the water. Last reporting year Lafarge used 94 million gallons of water, during one of the worst droughts in memory. Five hundred homes would use about 35 million gallons of water.

This may be good business for a Paris-based international corporation—but it’s just not paying its way for those of us in Sandoval County.

————————————————————————————–

Documents relating to Lafarge

[following added by Orin Safier]

Here is a 2013 Satellite view of the Lafarge operation, showing the areas detailed in the 1988 Certificate of Nonconformance: Sep 2013 Satellite View of Nonconforming Areas

Here are some documents that are important regarding the Lafarge mining:

1) 1988-01-11 Certificate of Nonconformance.  This was passed in 1988 by the Extraterritorial Zoning Commission, and places zoning restrictions on the mining property.

2) 2013-06-23 Lafarge Notice of Violation.  After the 1988 Nonconformance conditions were “grandfathered” in 2010, this Notice of Violation was issued by the County to Lafarge in 2013.

3) Lafarge Appeal Pages from 2013-09-06 Suit of County.  After receipt of the Notice of Violation, Lafarge attempted to appeal that notice. These pages contain their reasons why they consider themselves not to be in zoning violation.