Committee approves amended cosponsorship order for theater festival, asks city attorney for written opinion on 22G fund use

The committee considered Doc. 30‑344‑26, a request that the Lawrence Commission on Disability cosponsor the 14th annual Lawrence City Theater Festival and expend $10,000 from Project No. 19‑580 (funds tied to handicap parking fines under M.G.L. ch. 40 §22G).

ADA Coordinator Richard Rodriguez explained that the city attorney instructed him to present the matter to the council because the statute requires the commission to vote, the mayor to approve, and — on new advice — the city council to authorize the expenditure. "The city attorney asked me to do so...you need to follow this," Rodriguez told the committee.

The commission chair said the commission met on July 8 and voted unanimously to sponsor the event. Festival representative Santa Amante described an inclusive, multi‑week festival (Aug. 14–early Sept.) featuring performers with disabilities and outreach programming; the commission's request would break the $10,000 roughly into $5,000 toward the festival (including $2,500 sponsorship and $2,500 to subsidize tickets) and $5,000 for commission expenses during Disability Awareness Month in October 2026.

Several councilors raised statutory questions about whether 22G money (handicap‑parking receipts) may be spent in support of a private nonprofit event or whether expenditures must be limited to municipal accessibility projects or broadly public benefits. One councilor paraphrased the clerk's language: "the 22Gs cannot simply be used as a general charitable fund and the money cannot be used for a donation to a private nonprofit." ADA coordinator Rodriguez and CAFO Ceballos said the proposed spending is framed as a municipal commission expenditure for public benefit (marketing, accessibility, subsidized tickets) and noted similar past grants to nonprofits (for example, a scholarship to a high‑school alumni association).

To preserve timing for the festival and to secure legal clarity, the committee took two steps: (1) it voted to amend the order title to state explicitly the authorization to expend $10,000 from Project No. 19‑580 (M.G.L. ch. 40 §22G) for the cosponsorship and ADA commission obligations; and (2) it voted to send correspondence to the city attorney requesting a formal written opinion on permissibility. The committee then sent the item to the full council as a committee report pending the city attorney's written guidance. The chair warned that if the legal memo is not available at the full‑council meeting, councilors likely would not act that night.

What happens next: the city attorney will be asked to provide a formal written opinion on whether the proposed expenditures meet the statutory standard for 22G funds; the item will appear on the full‑council agenda as a committee report pending that memo.