The LaSalle City Council voted to approve a responsive contractor for demolition of 716 Buckland Street after rejecting an initially lower bid the council found did not comply fully with the city's bid checklist.

The debate began when the council considered a $18,415 low bid from Hersh & Company. The roll call on that motion produced multiple "aye" votes, and a speaker noted the mayor also voted "aye," but the city attorney advised the council that the Hersh bid did not meet all checklist requirements in the ordinance (including a documented substance‑abuse/prevailing‑wage compliance item) and therefore would require a supermajority to be awarded. Because the bid was found nonresponsive under the checklist, that motion was treated as defeated.

Council members then moved to accept a different responsive bid (identified in the meeting as Gillen Construction). The roll call on that motion was recorded as four ayes and three nays: Alderman Jepsen (aye), Alderman Crane (aye), Alderman Thompson (aye), Alderman Patak (aye); Alderman Reynolds (nay), Alderman LaViere (nay), and Alderman Denas (nay). Councilors discussed whether a fifth vote was legally required when the bid was the only responsive offer; the city attorney said ordinances generally require five votes but noted this item was not an ordinance and recommended clarity. The council proceeded after the discussion.

Aldermen voiced competing concerns during the debate: several said paying more for a contractor that met prevailing‑wage and related compliance requirements was appropriate to ensure safety and proper performance; others said the checklist and higher compliance costs could disadvantage small, local operators who lack union contracts or formal written policies. One alderman characterized the outcome as unfair to the "little guy," noting the lower bid was roughly one‑third less than the higher offer on this scope of work.

Clarifying details from the meeting record: the Hersh bid was shown as $18,415; council discussion referenced prevailing wage and the Davis‑Bacon related acts and a missing substance‑abuse checklist item; the later approved bid passed on a 4–3 roll call. The transcript shows the council requested strict adherence to the checklist established by prior ordinance when evaluating responsiveness.

The council did not adopt a separate policy at the meeting to change the checklist. No additional amendments to the procurement process were approved during the session.

The council's vote and attorney guidance leave open whether staff will seek additional legal or procedural clarification before issuing the demolition contract to the responsive bidder.