The Oakland Board of Aldermen voted 3–2 to authorize an offer to buy a commercial property from VCS Investments LLC after a lengthy discussion about renovation costs, asbestos risks and parking.

Attorney Minor, representing the town on the purchase document, told the board that the seller would not accept the 90‑day due‑diligence period the board had authorized in March and was offering a 30‑day inspection period with an option for a 15‑day extension. Minor said approving the contract would make a formal offer and start the 30‑day window for inspections and other due diligence. "If you voted tonight... you would be voting to make an offer consistent with the terms of this agreement," Minor told the board.

Town Manager Harvey Ellis told aldermen the 30‑day inspection window would allow staff to complete outstanding tests and reports and that the town could back out and recover refundable earnest money if problems arose during that period. Ellis also reminded the board that the contract includes a 15‑day extension if the town needs more time.

Several aldermen said they were concerned about potential renovation costs. Board members cited a possible elevator cost of roughly $80,000, asbestos and lead‑paint remediation, repairs to the roof and basement sealing, and uncertainty over where additional parking would go. One alderman noted a previous local renovation that required roughly $135,000 and said the board should not be rushed into a decision without full estimates.

Miss Hines, the seller’s representative, described prior work on the building: state grant–funded rewiring and plumbing, fire‑rated doors and ADA work done earlier when the property was considered for a birthing center. She said parts of the property would still require upgrades to meet current codes, including ramps or an elevator for public access.

Alderman Bailey moved to accept the contract and Alderman Austin seconded. The motion passed by roll call, 3 yes to 2 no. The contract as presented starts the 30‑day due‑diligence period; the buyer may seek a single 15‑day extension. Earlier board direction (March resolution) limited refundable earnest money to not more than $5,000; the contract under discussion references a refundable deposit consistent with that direction.

Board members asked staff to return to a workshop with detailed cost estimates — including asbestos testing, elevator options, roof and structural fixes and parking impacts — before closing the purchase. Ellis and staff said they expected to complete most inspections within the 30‑day window and that the board would have further opportunities at an upcoming workshop and at the next regular meeting to assess results and decide whether to complete the purchase.

The vote to accept the contract followed extensive public discussion and multiple staff reports; several aldermen stressed they would not support closing if inspections revealed unacceptable costs or unresolvable code issues. The board did not set a final closing date in public discussion; the contract referenced a target close in May (date in contract: not specified in the public record provided to the board).