There are currently two separate actions being considered by the council. You are correct if you think think the order of these actions doesn't make sense.
The first is the resolution considered in the Ethics and Legal Review committe. The details of which I listed above. The resolution doesn't really make sense because there already is a negotiation ongoing, so if it is passed on the 22nd (the next time the council meets) it won't really do anything. As McManus stated, he thinks the resolution provides a framework for Cordish to understand what the Council wants. Other Council people may have different designs with the intent of the resolution. Ultimately, though, it is just a resolution and has no real authority.
The second is the ordinance considered in the Finance committee. It approves the ongoing negotiations and appropriates future funds to that affect. If this passes on the 22nd, the conversation is over.
It should be noted, that today during the finance committee Cordish made clear that the original form of this ordinance came with concessions from Cordish that had been negotiated over the past two years. (Taking over operations of garages and associated costs, increasing PILOTS...maybe others?)
Today, Cordish agreed to additional changes in the MDA (if the ordinance is approved):
- -4 light and beyond would REQUIRE the development of 10% affordable housing units. Those units do not have to be in the building(s), but could be anywhere in the city. If they are w/n the district (eg. Midland Offices), affordable is defined as 100% of AMI, if they are outside the district it is defined as 80% of AMI.
-Reducing city participation in incentives for parking garages from 99 years to 45 year OR a maximum of "6 Lights", which ever occurs first. - In exchange, the boundaries in which these terms are applied would extend 3 blocks beyond the currently defined Power and Light District.
-A CID w/ an additional 1% sales tax would be added to the district to be split between Cordish and the city. Cordish to use for operations and the city could use to either offset the cost of bond payments for the garage or to cover future capital maintenance costs for garages within the district.
Canaday made it sound like this wasn't acceptable and wanted all future projects funding sources to be determined in this current amendment. Cordish said they have already negotiated way beyond the original commitments in the agreement and didn't seem too keen on any more concessions. The committee basically agreed to move the ordinance to the council for consideration on march 22 to allow for "continuing negotiations".