City Attorney highlights affirmative litigation wins, CPU funding in FY15 budget pitch

The San Francisco City Attorney told the Budget and Finance Committee on June 16 that the office's proposed fiscal 2014-15 budget reflects a $3,035,098 increase largely tied to mandated salary and fringe-benefit changes, and stressed that those resources support litigation and consumer-protection work that benefits residents.

City Attorney Mr. Herrera said the office handled roughly 2,800 claims in fiscal 2013-14 and opened about 200 board-generated work assignments last year. He described a nationally recognized affirmative litigation program that pursues cases to protect consumers, tenants and working families.

Herrera highlighted several active matters. He cited a recent judgment in a lead-paint case that he described as a $1,150,000,000 award against three manufacturers, saying San Francisco could be eligible for up to $80,000,000 for abatement work if the judgment is affirmed on appeal. He also noted the office's litigation to preserve City College of San Francisco, saying a petition filed by the office secured a preliminary injunction that prevented the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges from finalizing a deaccreditation that would have closed the institution.

The City Attorney outlined the Consumer Protection Unit's funding history: an initial restricted recovery balance reported in earlier hearings, a prior-year appropriation of about $1,830,000, and an added $2.6 million this fiscal year that brought the CPU budget to $4.5 million. He said the CPU's restricted fund balance is approximately $10 million and that, since inception, the office has received more than $20 million in CPU-dedicated recoveries. Herrera said the CPU has filed suits including actions against Monster Energy over marketing practices and other matters the office remains litigating.

Budget analyst Harvey Rose reported recommended reductions to the City Attorney budget (detailed in the written report) that the department has generally accepted; Rose's office calculates the committee's recommended reductions would still allow a net increase in the department's budget. The committee did not take immediate action and will consider recommended changes alongside public comment scheduled later in the week.

The committee heard questions from supervisors about line items and agreed to compile a cumulative list of cuts they support to consider a sweeping amendment later in the budget process. The City Attorney and budget analyst said they were largely in concurrence on the recommendations presented.