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

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.



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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.


  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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..

Comments are closed.