LaSalle County committee reviews trustee-led sale of Utica water-park property

At the May 20, 2025 meeting of the LaSalle County Taxation, Election & GIS Committee, Treasurer Mr. Spellman said a tax‑trustee has taken deed to a large, damaged water‑park property near Utica and recommended moving toward a trustee‑run special sale so the parcel can return to the tax rolls.

The property, described during the meeting as the large white building next to the water park (referred to in materials as Grand Bear/Grand Bear water park), had been in bankruptcy and tax sale proceedings for years, Mr. Spellman said. He told the committee that the trustee (Joe Meyer) had recently completed the deed process and that the trustee — not the county — holds title and will oversee any sale.

The discussion matters because a sale would return the property to the tax rolls and could reduce ongoing vandalism and policing costs, committee members said. County staff also flagged limits tied to the City of Utica’s zoning rules that would restrict what buyers could do with the site unless the buyer sought a zoning change or variance.

Mr. Spellman summarized the trustee’s options and the site’s condition. “The good news is, we finally got the property back because it has been in tax sale for years and years,” he said. He described two parcels that must be sold in tandem, noted the building is “beat up bad,” and said there are at least two parties who have expressed interest. He added that the trustee may accept sealed bids and that advertising or covenants could require a buyer to follow through on redevelopment within a stated timeframe.

County staff and the committee discussed procedural limits. Mr. Spellman said the trustee must follow statutory and trustee procedures for disposing of tax‑sale property and that the county is the beneficiary of sale proceeds but does not hold title. A county staff member added that Utica police have responded to calls at the vacant property and that the city may have condemned portions of the structure, which affects what buyers can do without city approvals.

Committee members and staff debated whether the county should set a minimum bid or include covenants in sale documents. Mr. Spellman said he did not know a recommended minimum and that the trustee could “decline” unqualified bids. A staff member suggested involving county counsel and the trustee’s counsel to draft sale terms that align with Utica’s zoning limitations.

No motion or formal vote was taken on a sale at the committee meeting. Mr. Spellman said he would contact Joe Meyer’s office and coordinate with county counsel and city representatives to clarify next steps; the committee did not adopt a sale resolution or direct a specific minimum price.

The committee received printed materials and photographs of the property for review. Staff said a special sale could be arranged outside the county’s standard November tax‑sale calendar if the trustee and county agree on marketing and covenants.

The committee plans to continue working with the trustee, county counsel and the City of Utica to clarify sale terms, zoning restrictions and how proceeds will be distributed if the trustee proceeds with a sealed bid process.