PORT: FACILITY WILL SUFFER STATE CUTS

SCOTT CITY - Add the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority to a list of agencies receiving state funds that have experienced cutbacks for the fiscal year that began July 1.

On Monday, at the monthly meeting of the port Board of Commissioners, Executive Director Allan Maki reported that the annual operating grant for fiscal 1992 had been cut from $49,500 to $36,492.

Port authorities in Missouri receive an annual subsidy from the waterways division of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department to cover administrative expenses. In fiscal 1990 the port received $52,000 from the state; last year it had been budgeted for $48,000 but, due to withholdings, received $44,000.

Despite the loss of anticipated revenue, Maki did not express any concern about the overall financial condition of the port because of the cuts.

For fiscal 1991, which just ended, Maki said the port received 98.87 percent of its projected revenues and spent $13,000 less than it had been budgeted for the year.

During June, tonnage moving through the port's public dock facility totaled 1,635, bringing the year-to-date total to 27,056 tons. That is just under the 28,454 tons processed in all of 1990 and well above the 20,396 tons handled in 1989.

Maki said he had hoped the first six months of this year would exceed 1990, but, with the fertilizer season winding down, the tonnage slowed during June.

"It's a good trend and shows some consistent movement of products," said Maki, adding that he expects tonnage to pick up in the fall and is still optimistic that the port will reach its goal of 50,000 tons in 1991.

In another update, Mark Eldridge, marketing director for the port, reported that he had made contacts with 86 grain companies about the possibility of situating on land around the port. He said he also plans to contact another 150 companies.

Both Eldridge and Maki told the board that grain is a good "niche market" for the port, and expressed optimism that a large grain company eventually will situate there.

Maki said that running the rail spur into the port will give grain companies a good link with river transportation that they need.

Eldridge advised the board that he was continuing to work on the Foreign Trade Zone application for the port and that he was expanding the application to include Southern Illinois counties across the Mississippi River from the port.

Construction of the rail spur is moving along, and Maki said about one-eighth of the dirt that needs to be moved for the rail line has been moved. Work on the rail line is being done by CRW Construction of Little Rock, Ark.

Port commissioners also discussed a recommendation from the construction committee that some of the land the port owns should be rented for farm land to bring in income.

Recently, the board decided that with 415 acres of developable lands and another 50 acres on Marquette Island set aside for wildlife, it would be good to have the construction committee establish a policy for land management.

As part of that effort, gates have been put into place at all three entrances to the port property to increase security.

Maki said that two construction committee members, Morty Potashnick of Sikeston and Fred Surman of Chaffee, had suggested he get bids from area farmers for planting crops on land around the port that is tillable. He guessed about 100 acres is tillable.

But Maki said he disagreed with the recommendation that some of the land should be farmed because the port went to some expense when the harbor was built to deal with major erosion problems.

At the most, Maki said farmers would probably pay about $50 an acre to use the land because it is good for only one crop each year because of spring flooding.

Maki said that in showing the land to industrial prospects he would rather show them a green area rather than a bean field.

"I don't think we should rush into the farming business," said Commissioner Peter Kinder of Cape Girardeau.

Commissioner Hense Winchester of Sikeston said it is too late to farm the land this year so it would be better to address the issue at a later date.

Neither Surman nor Potashnick were at Monday's meeting. The board agreed to discuss the matter when they were present.