Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treasurer Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters and treasurer clash over supplemental packet as treasurer defends returns and flags legal risk
Summary
At the Nov. 25 Kane County Finance & Budget Committee meeting, public commenters criticized the treasurer’s supplemental packet as partisan and lacking financial benchmarks; Treasurer Lawson defended his office’s reporting of investment returns and warned of possible liability tied to tax‑sale proceeds.
Public commenters pressed Kane County officials on Tuesday, criticizing supplementary material in the treasurer’s monthly packet and asking for clearer, nonpartisan financial metrics. Steve Loeffler and Denise Stiebold told the Finance and Budget Committee that the supplemental materials included opinion pieces and political commentary that they said were unrelated to county finances.
"A 100 pages of political opinion articles...none of which have anything to do with Kane County finances," said the reader of Denise Stiebold’s statement, which asked the treasurer to provide standard investment performance indicators such as year‑to‑date, one‑, three‑ and five‑year returns rather than partisan commentary. Steve Loeffler told the committee the packet contained both useful information and items that he considered irrelevant.
Treasurer Lawson, responding to the public comments, asked the committee to correct an earlier written record that he said implied his office had not complied with budget procedures. Lawson said his office submitted the required 2026 budget adjustments on time and requested a written letter from the committee confirming compliance. "If it hadn't been put in writing, I wouldn't insist," Lawson said, describing his request as a short factual correction to the record.
Lawson also presented the treasurer’s monthly report, summarizing interest income and portfolio results he said are published monthly on the county website. In his presentation he cited monthly interest income figures and a multi‑year trend showing returns above benchmarks; he noted the county retained only a portion of monthly interest (with the remainder distributed to schools, towns and other taxing districts).
During the report Lawson raised a separate legal concern: he described the Minnesota case Tyler v. Hennepin County — litigation over the disposition of excess proceeds from tax‑certificate/foreclosure sales — and said a similar exposure could exist in Illinois. He characterized the issue as a fiscal and legal risk, citing an estimate of approximately $18,000,000 of potential liability tied to foreclosure proceeds in Kane County as presented to the committee. Lawson urged legislative or committee attention on the matter.
The committee did not take formal action on the treasurer's request for a corrected record during the meeting but the chair said staff would provide a letter acknowledging the treasurer's compliance. The treasurer also asked for clarity around reserve usage and figures for the adopted versus amended budgets; members agreed to follow up with staff to supply clearer explanatory material.
The meeting closed the treasurer section with no additional formal votes tied to the report; Lawson’s figures and the legal concern about tax‑sale proceeds were presented for committee awareness and potential follow up.
