
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6b Page 3 of 6
Meeting Date: January 9, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Leave the space vacant and do not build it out into leasable space
Cost Implications: $0 from the Port. The estimated cost of the project, $1,196,000, would be
avoided.
Pros:
(1) No capital funding costs are associated with this alternative
Cons:
(1) Leaving this space unimproved would keep the area un-leasable and would not
address the crucial need for additional leasable space.
(2) Would not realize the revenue from Delta for leasing this, and adjacent space not
subject to reimbursement by the Port, of approximately $1.27M annually.
(3) Does not provide Delta a key operational resource they are requesting
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – The Port build out this space to leasable condition without using a TRA, Delta
would then make their tenant improvements (TIs) after the Port’s improvements were
completed.
Cost Implications: $1,394,000
Pros:
(1) Would not require a TRA between the Port and Delta
(2) Port would receive approximately $1.27M in annual revenue from the lease of this,
and adjacent space not subject to reimbursement by the Port.
(3) Frees up space on Mezzanine level of South Satellite for development as common use
club
(4) More control related to Port project costs due to direct control of project by Port staff
Cons:
(1) Would require two separate projects. Port would construct improvements to make
the space leasable, then Delta would make their tenant improvements, which would
likely require them to remove portions of the Port’s original project scope
(2) More costly than Alternative 3
(3) Would take approximately 28 months to complete, missing Delta’s preferred
occupancy date by 22 months.
This is not the recommended alternative.