Revenues increase significantly for Natchez-Adams County Port

Published 12:05 am Wednesday, October 22, 2014

A tugboat pushes barges down the Mississippi River past the Natchez-Adams County Port Tuesday. (Sam Gause / The Natchez Democrat)

A tugboat pushes barges down the Mississippi River past the Natchez-Adams County Port Tuesday. (Sam Gause / The Natchez Democrat)

NATCHEZ — It continued to sustain an operating loss, but losses were cut by approximately 83 percent and port officials said trends indicate it will make a profit in the coming year.

During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the port moved approximately 1.25 million tons of cargo, Port Director Anthony Hauer said.

Mississippi Association of Supervisors officials tour Natchez-Adams County Port during their October Educational Conference 2014 Tuesday. During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the port moved approximately 1.25 million tons of cargo, more than it has in over a decade. (Sam Gause / The Natchez Democrat)

Mississippi Association of Supervisors officials tour Natchez-Adams County Port during their October Educational Conference 2014 Tuesday. During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the port moved approximately 1.25 million tons of cargo, more than it has in over a decade. (Sam Gause / The Natchez Democrat)

“That is something we have not seen in a long, long time,” he said. “It’s been 10 or 15 years since we have moved that much.”

Email newsletter signup

That increase in business is reflected in the port’s audit for 2013, which was presented to the Adams County Board of Supervisors Monday.

The audit shows an $866,400 increase in charges for services over the previous year and — when an additional $32,161 for refunds is added in — $898,561 in total additions to operating revenues.

The 2012 fiscal year’s final operating revenues were for $1,732,300, while 2013 surpassed that with $2,630,861 in operating revenues.

At the same time revenues were going up, operating expenses also increased $556,965, rising from $2,143,880 in 2012 to $2,700,575 in 2013.

Even with the nearly $1 million increase in revenue, the port operated at a loss of $69,714 in 2013.

But that was a considerable improvement from the $411,580 operating loss of 2012, and Hauer said he expects the port to see continued improvement and positive operations during the current fiscal year.

“I anticipate that, barring any circumstances beyond the port commission’s control and foresight, the $69,000 loss will turn into a 100 percent pure profit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2015,” he said.

“We have a bright future ahead of us, and we are headed back to where we wanted to be in our 10-year plan.”

Hauer said the increase in port business could only be attributed to a “full and steady stream of cargo movement” that resulted from an active campaign and marketing strategy of the port and its commission.

“There is no particular client that it can be attributed to, but we have a group of clients who are experiencing growth and we are adding some additional clients in the grain business,” he said. “Our numbers are going up with existing clients, and we have developed a line of clientele who are repeat customers, one client at a time.”

The county’s acquisition and operation of a large port warehouse — which the port had previously operated on a subcontract for a property owner — is also reflected in the port revenue.

“When we subcontracted services for that, parts of the revenue generated through that contract had to go to the titleholder of the property,” Hauer said. “Now all services provided through the warehouse are through the port’s account and the commission is in control of it.”

During 2013, the total port debt was reduced from $2,591,489 to $2,387,000.

The audit includes one finding of concern, saying the port’s internal controls over financial reporting represent a material weakness.

The port’s auditor, Deanne Tanksley, said Monday the finding was included because the port has only two employees in its administrative offices, which doesn’t allow for adequate segregation of duties.

The finding was included because it is required by law to note it, not because the audit indicates anything wrong, Tanksley said.