Taxpayer Property. Family Connections. A Failed Vote. Hidden Emails.
May 07, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Records Raise Serious Questions About How Freeport City Hall Continued a Lease Arrangement the Council Never Approved
For months, questions have quietly circulated throughout Freeport regarding a taxpayer-owned property at 103-111 S. Liberty Avenue and why longtime occupant Peter Alber has continued operating out of the building even after the Freeport City Council failed to approve a fifth lease renewal in September 2025.
Now, after weeks of Freedom of Information Act requests, city records, council minutes, ordinances, lease agreements, and internal communications reviewed by Fighting4Freeport, a troubling picture has emerged.
The issue is no longer simply about a lease.
It is now about whether city administration ignored the legal outcome of a failed council vote, whether the public and council were misled regarding a supposed future property sale, and whether politically connected individuals were allowed to continue benefiting from taxpayer-owned property under extraordinarily favorable terms.
And perhaps most alarming of all, key communications between City Manager Rob Boyer and the City’s taxpayer-funded legal counsel have been withheld from public review entirely.
The Lease That Failed
On September 2, 2025, the Freeport City Council held the first reading of Ordinance #2025-53, which would have authorized the City to enter into a fifth renewal of the lease agreement with Peter Alber for the city-owned building at 103-111 S. Liberty Avenue.
The ordinance proposed extending the lease one additional year through September 14, 2026 at a rate of $2,000 annually.
In a memo presented to the City Council dated August 29, 2025, City Manager Rob Boyer wrote:
“A new provision grants the tenant option to purchase the property under terms and conditions mutually agreeable to both parties, which will be formalized in a separate real estate contract should the option be exercised.”
The ordinance itself similarly stated:
“During the term of the Lease, Lessee shall have the option to purchase the Property from Lessor on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to Lessor and Lessee.”
During the September 2, 2025 council discussion, Boyer further informed council members that:
The building contained four additional vacant floors
No one had expressed interest in leasing the additional space
The City had not actively marketed the available space
The lease extension included a provision allowing the City and tenant to potentially work toward a future sale of the building
When 5th Ward Alderwoman Cecelia Stacy asked whether the property was being marketed, Boyer reportedly that the City had not advertised the space but would do so “if that was the council’s desire.”
The Second Reading and the Vote
The second reading of Ordinance #2025-53 took place during the September 15, 2025 City Council meeting.
During that meeting, City Manager Boyer again emphasized the possibility of a future property sale, telling the council:
“There is a change to this lease that will allow us to work out a sale price for the building between now and the next time this renews.”
Questions from council members about the lease and potential sale reportedly led to visible tension during the meeting.
At one point, Mayor Jodi Miller — whose family member was the tenant occupying the property under discussion — reportedly interrupted the discussion by stating:
“If you have specific question that’s a phone call.” Attempting to end the conversation in the appropriate public setting of a council meeting.
Moments later, during further discussion, Mayor Miller reportedly admonished 7th Ward Alderman Larry Sander, stating:
“I am the chair, you just need to back yourself up away from the microphone before you’re called out of order.”
The ordinance vote ultimately failed.
According to the council record, the vote stood at:
5 Aye
2 Nay
Alderwoman-at-Large Joy Sellers absent
Under Illinois law, municipal real estate lease agreements of this nature required approval by a two-thirds vote of the council in addition to mayoral approval.
That threshold was not met.
Meaning Ordinance #2025-53 did not pass.
Legally, the fifth renewal lease agreement was never approved by the City Council.
That fact changes everything.
Yet Occupancy Continued Anyway
Despite the failure of the ordinance, Peter Alber continued occupying the taxpayer-owned building.
Records obtained through FOIA show the City continued invoicing Alber Properties after the failed vote and after expiration of the prior lease agreement.
City Clerk Dovie Anderson later informed Fighting4Freeport that the City considered the tenancy converted to a month-to-month arrangement under the terms of the prior lease agreement.
According to the City’s interpretation, once the lease expired on September 14, 2025, the tenant automatically became a month-to-month occupant with rent doubling from $2,000 annually to $4,000 annually.
But that explanation leaves enormous unanswered questions.
Because the lease did not just expire. The City Council had just ended the lease.
And despite that failed vote, city administration continued allowing occupancy of taxpayer-owned property anyway.
The Financial Terms Are Extraordinary
The numbers tied to this arrangement help explain why residents are increasingly alarmed.
Based on records obtained through FOIA, the previous lease amount was just $2,000 annually for an estimated 15,000 square foot commercial structure.
That equates to:
$166.67 per month
Approximately 1.1 cents per square foot per month
Approximately 13 cents per square foot per YEAR
After expiration, the City states the amount doubled to $4,000 annually under the month-to-month provision.
Even at the doubled amount, the terms remain astonishingly low:
$333.33 per month
Approximately 2.2 cents per square foot per month
Approximately 26 cents per square foot per YEAR
To put that into perspective, many small storefronts and office suites in Freeport lease for more per square foot in a single month than this politically connected arrangement costs in an entire year.
At approximately 15,000 square feet, this is not a small storage building or temporary garage.
This is a massive taxpayer-owned commercial property.
And residents deserve to know:
What other business in Freeport has ever been afforded terms remotely comparable to this?
The “Potential Sale” Narrative Raises New Questions
The controversy surrounding the property became even more serious after Fighting4Freeport reviewed the City’s FOIA responses regarding any proposed sale of the building.
In public meetings, City Manager Boyer repeatedly referenced the possibility of a future sale as justification for continuing the lease arrangement.
But when Fighting4Freeport requested records related to any potential sale, the City produced no:
Purchase agreements
Offers
Letters of intent
Appraisals tied to a pending transaction
Documented negotiations
Communications indicating an active sale process
Nothing.
Despite repeated public references to the possibility of an anticipated sale, Fighting4Freeport has thus far uncovered no evidence showing an active or formalized purchase process existed.
That contradiction significantly alters the public understanding of the situation.
Because if no active sale negotiations existed, residents are now left asking why a future property sale was repeatedly emphasized during council discussions surrounding the lease extension.
Hidden Legal Communications
In its May 1, 2026 FOIA response, the City acknowledged that portions of emails — and in some cases entire emails and attachments — were withheld under exemptions contained within the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.
Specifically cited were:
Section 7(1)(f): preliminary drafts and policy discussions
Section 7(1)(m): communications between the municipality and its attorney not subject to discovery
The City identified City Clerk Dovie Anderson and Legal Counsel Aaron Szeto as the individuals responsible for the redactions and denials.
That means communications between City Manager Rob Boyer and the City attorney regarding this taxpayer-owned property were deemed significant enough to completely shield from public review.
And that raises a major public concern.
Because residents are now left asking:
Why would legal discussions regarding a supposedly straightforward month-to-month tenancy require this level of secrecy?
The city attorney is funded by taxpayers and represents the interests of the City itself — not individual elected officials or politically connected families.
Yet taxpayers are being denied access to communications involving decisions surrounding public property and politically connected individuals.
The Broader Public Trust Problem
This issue now extends far beyond one building or one lease agreement.
At its core, this story strikes directly at why many residents and business owners increasingly feel disconnected from local government and discouraged about Freeport’s economic future.
City leadership frequently speaks about economic development, attracting investment, and supporting small businesses.
But behind closed doors, politically connected individuals appear to have been granted access to taxpayer-owned property at rates that ordinary business owners could never realistically obtain.
That creates two separate systems:
One for politically connected insiders. And another for everyone else.
Because how can outside investors compete fairly in Freeport when politically connected operators appear to be functioning at what many residents would consider near rent-free rates?
How can local businesses survive paying market rent, taxes, insurance, utilities, and rising operational costs while others receive extraordinary advantages through relationships inside City Hall?
These are exactly the kinds of arrangements that erode public trust and discourage serious outside investment from entering communities like Freeport.
Successful economic development requires fairness, transparency, and equal treatment.
Without those things, businesses stop believing the playing field is level.
And when businesses stop believing the system is fair, they invest elsewhere.
Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson, Chairman – Fighting4Freeport
This story stopped being about a lease a long time ago.
The facts now appear far more serious than many residents originally realized.
The City Council failed to approve Ordinance #2025-53. That is not opinion. That is the official vote.
The fifth renewal lease agreement never legally passed. Yet despite that failed vote, occupancy continued anyway.
At the same time, City Manager Rob Boyer repeatedly emphasized the possibility of a future property sale during public discussions surrounding the lease extension.
But when Fighting4Freeport requested records tied to any proposed sale, the City failed to produce documentation showing an active purchase agreement, offer, or formal negotiation process.
That contradiction alone should concern every taxpayer in Freeport.
Because if the sale process being discussed publicly was never actually formalized or documented, residents have every right to ask whether council members and the public were given a misleading impression about the future of this property.
And while all of this was unfolding, communications between City administration and the taxpayer-funded city attorney were withheld from public review.
The average resident in Freeport does not receive access to a 15,000 square foot taxpayer-owned building for a few hundred dollars per month. The average business owner does not continue occupying public property after a council votes to terminate the lease. And the average citizen certainly does not receive the protection of hidden legal communications shielded from public scrutiny.
At some point, accountability matters. Because transparency cannot only exist when it is politically convenient.
At the end of the day the issue is not that this tenant is related to the mayor. The real issues that have the public screaming “corruption” are very simple. The Mayor should have recused herself from all discussion and communication regarding this matter. And our highly paid city manager has a duty to be honest and transparent when communicating with our city council. Without accurate information, our council cannot be expected to make good decisions. Misleading or blatantly lying to council should result in Rob Boyer’s immediate resignation or termination. Period. Stop.