Business

Major Port of Pensacola revenues dropped nearly 30 percent since FY 2012, expected to drop another 21 percent in FY 2018

October 31, 2017

The Port of Pensacola’s four major revenue sources dropped nearly 30 percent from FY 2012 to FY 2016, according the city’s budget documents. The actual revenue figures for FY 2017 have not been posted by the city so we don’t know if the port made its revenue budget.

The three of the major revenue sources are a function of ship traffic at the port – Wharfage (-19.7%), Storage (-32.6%) and Dockage (-37.7%). The top revenue source is property rental fees, which dropped 24.7% from FY 2012-2016.

 FY Wharfage Storage Dockage Rentals Total
2012  398,441  194,977  799,392  805,132  2,197,942
2013  368,119  221,366  348,338  667,146  1,604,969
2014  393,965  232,946  635,847  409,048  1,671,806
2015  289,504  240,969  545,597  588,584  1,664,654
2016  319,874  131,406  498,016  606,510  1,555,806
Decrease -19.7% -32.6% -37.7% -24.7% -29.2%

 

The FY 2018 proposed budget estimates port revenues will dropped another 21.4 percent this next year. If the City meets that FY 2018 budget estimate, the port revenues will have fallen $803,000 since FY 2012. Yikes!

 

It’s difficult to understand why Mayor Hayward isn’t fighting to move the fish hatchery to the Port of Pensacola. The Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission could save $9 million on constructing a new building and instead pay rental fees to the port.

 

You Might Also Like

6 Comments

  • Reply EPenn November 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    It’s just crazy that there is this much arguing about 250ft of semi-usable beach, and that measurement is being kind, because half that is backed by the East FDEP Conservation run off area. The other half of the “beach” is in the Southern FDEP conservation area or blocked by it to the south. There is absolutely no way this property will ever look like what is shown in the 2010 CRA park plan.

    Also, plan to spend that $700k again that has already been spent for the project. I have worked with project like this long enough to know they are going to start from 0 again… That meaning it will have cost $1.4 million before they even stick a shovel in the ground.

  • Reply EPenn November 2, 2017 at 11:56 am

    Clearly we can see from the chart you are comparing the highest year and not even close to what would be considered an average year. Statistically your calculations are ridiculous.

  • Reply Gloria G Horning, Ph.D. November 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    Surely someone other than myself can see how the hatchery would be perfect here… generating funds…. then stay with the 2010 CRA park plan at Bruce Beach.
    Money saved… because it will be a legal battle..

    • Reply EPenn November 2, 2017 at 11:58 am

      Are you admitting the fishery will generate funds? It would cost a ton of money to start the fishery project over again if moved to the port, who is to pick up that tab? The fishery project has already been put out for bid and will soon be ready for construction to begin.

      • Reply Rick Outzen November 2, 2017 at 1:21 pm

        EPenn,
        Admitting? No, we’re reporting that FWC can lease a building from the Port rather than spend $9M to build one. The profitability of the hatchery isn’t a factor in leasing vs. building. Also the FWC Foundation has had the $18 million for about four years – @ 3% interest (actual rate could be higher) those funds have earned over $2 million for FWC. As of the latest federal report on the project, less than $700,000 has been spent on the project…so “tons of money” to relocate needs to be researched by the city.

        -Rick

    • Reply dot November 2, 2017 at 1:36 pm

      Just an fyi…the CRA plan did not propose the entirety of bruce beach as public park. there is a full block of private development south of main street proposed to support the public beach development south of the east/west road extension (Cedar St?). The new road being a buffer between the public and private so you don’t have a port royal II. Hatchery doesn’t exactly meet those plan concepts, but the plan also didn’t recommend all of it to public/beach.

    Leave a Reply

    Read This Before Leaving a Comment

    Please make sure your comments follow our guidelines:

    • Please use real name - first and last names.
    • No foul language (please). Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
    • Do not threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
    • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
    • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind. Email Rick: Rick@inweekly.net. The comment will be deleted asap.
    • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
    • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person
    • Remember, this is my site. I set the rules and reserve the right to remove any comments that I deem inappropriate and to ban anyone who violates these rules.

    Comments that do not adhere will be deleted or marked as SPAM.