While some in City Hall might be donning their Nationals hats and spontaneously busting out in “Take Me Out to the Ballpark,” we’d like to offer a dose of caution. Yes, District officials and MLB have finally reached an agreement on a lease agreement for the new stadium, but no, this should not be considered said and done until the D.C. Council approves it.

WTOP is reporting that the two sides — forced into new negotiations in late December because of council opposition to provisions of the lease — have finally come to terms, agreeing to forego private financing in the construction of the stadium but calling for $12 million in additional concessions from MLB. According to published reports, the new agreement stipulates the following:

– The city to use traditional and not private financing for the stadium
– The city to split with the team the proceeds of land sold for development
– Major League Baseball to lease RFK in 2008 if the new stadium is not completed
– MLB to develop a youth baseball facility
– MLB to increase the number free tickets given to disadvantaged children

Of course, MLB couldn’t not take a petty pot-shot at the District, as a cover letter submitted to the council verifies:

The parties also agree that if the executive branch of the D.C. government, including the commission and the Anacostia Waterfront Corp. or the chair of the Council or the District Council, requests even $1 more or anything of the equivalent value of $1 more from the team or MLB, the commission will relinquish one of the two suites at the ballpark.

The council has until June 20, 2006 to approve the deal, but word has it that Williams is pushing for a vote on February 7. Should that not happen, we’re guessing they’ll just wait until June 19 and then complain that they haven’t had enough time to consider the lease.

Details are trickling out, and we’ll update as events warrant.

Update: We are still trying to figure out what the status of the price-cap on the stadium is. This has long been one of the deal’s main sticking points, yet WTOP has said nothing of it. Similarly, word has it that the secretary of the council rejected the new agreement for being “legally insufficient.” We’re trying to establish what, if anything, this means.

Update II: From NBC 4 we find out more about the agreement being “legally insufficient”: “…the council sent the lease back on a technicality. The lease lacked supporting documentation.” Quite the oversight, isn’t it?