Who Really Pays for Freeport’s Sidewalks?
May 28, 2026 | Freeport, IL
The City Controls Them, The Public Uses Them, But Property Owners Carry the Burden
Most Freeport residents believe the city is responsible for the sidewalk in front of their home.
According to Chapter 1026 of the Freeport City Code, they are largely wrong.
Under Freeport’s sidewalk ordinance, adjoining property owners may be responsible for:
maintaining sidewalks,
repairing sidewalks,
removing snow and ice,
correcting dangerous conditions,
paying replacement costs,
complying with ADA accessibility standards,
obtaining permits,
following city engineering specifications,
and potentially facing liability if someone is injured.
For many residents, this comes as a complete shock.
Because while sidewalks exist within public right-of-way and are used by the general public, the city has shifted much of the financial burden and maintenance responsibility directly onto homeowners, landlords, and business owners.
At the same time, the city still maintains ultimate authority and control over the sidewalks themselves.
That contradiction sits at the heart of this ordinance.
The Most Important Sentence in the Entire Ordinance
The most important language in Chapter 1026 appears in Section 1026.02:
“The owner of the land abutting the street dedication or right of way upon which a sidewalk exists shall keep and maintain such sidewalk in a safe condition and a good and thorough state of repair at all times.”
That sentence fundamentally changes how many residents think about sidewalks.
The ordinance does not simply encourage maintenance.
It does not suggest shared responsibility.
It does not say the city is primarily responsible unless conditions become dangerous.
Instead, it directly places the duty of maintenance onto the adjoining property owner.
That means:
cracked concrete,
raised slabs,
trip hazards,
deteriorating pavement,
drainage issues,
snow accumulation,
and unsafe conditions
all become the legal responsibility of the adjoining property owner.
For thousands of Freeport residents, this may be one of the most financially significant ordinances they have never actually read.
Property Owners Can Potentially Be Held Liable
The ordinance goes even further.
Section 1026.03 states that if someone is injured because of a defect, obstruction, dangerous condition, or lack of repair involving a sidewalk, the owner responsible for maintaining that sidewalk “shall be liable.”
Many residents naturally assume sidewalks are city responsibility because sidewalks are public infrastructure.
But under Freeport’s ordinance, adjoining owners may still face legal exposure.
However, the legal reality is more complicated than the ordinance alone suggests.
Under Illinois law, sidewalks remain public infrastructure within public right-of-way. Municipalities generally cannot simply eliminate all liability through local ordinance language.
In real-world litigation, injured parties often sue:
the city,
the adjoining property owner,
and sometimes additional parties connected to the condition.
Courts then determine:
who controlled the property,
who had notice of the defect,
who caused the dangerous condition,
and whether governmental immunity applies.
That distinction matters enormously.
Because while the city attempts to shift much of the burden onto property owners, the city still maintains ultimate authority over the sidewalks themselves.
The City Controls the Sidewalks — But Owners Pay the Bills
This is where many residents become frustrated.
The city regulates the sidewalks as public infrastructure while simultaneously shifting much of the cost and responsibility onto adjoining property owners.
Under the ordinance:
permits are required for repairs,
the city controls specifications,
the city dictates engineering standards,
the city enforces ADA requirements,
the city determines acceptable materials,
and the city may reject nonconforming work.
Property owners cannot simply repair sidewalks however they choose.
They must comply with extensive city, state, and federal requirements involving:
sidewalk thickness,
subgrade preparation,
width requirements,
ADA accessibility,
slope regulations,
detectable warning systems,
curb ramp geometry,
and inspection requirements.
Modern sidewalk replacement is no longer simply “pouring concrete.”
It often requires contractors, permits, inspections, engineering compliance, and accessibility upgrades that can cost thousands of dollars.
And under the ordinance, much of that expense falls directly onto adjoining property owners.
Owners Carry Responsibility Without Full Rights
Perhaps the most controversial part of the ordinance is this:
Property owners are responsible for maintaining sidewalks they do not truly control.
The public uses them.
The city regulates them.
The city dictates standards.
But adjoining owners carry much of the financial burden.
Residents cannot:
close the sidewalk,
restrict public access,
redesign the sidewalk,
ignore city specifications,
or freely modify the infrastructure without city approval.
They also cannot realistically treat the sidewalk like true private property.
Property owners generally cannot file trespassing complaints against pedestrians using “their” sidewalk because the sidewalk remains public space.
If vandals damage the sidewalk, the owner may still ultimately face repair responsibility.
If heavy traffic, utility work, freeze-thaw cycles, or public use deteriorate the sidewalk over time, the adjoining owner may still be expected to maintain it.
In practical terms, many residents feel they are being held financially responsible for infrastructure they neither fully own nor fully control.
The City Can Force Repairs
The ordinance gives the city significant enforcement power.
Under Section 1026.01(f), the city may pass a special ordinance requiring owners to repair or construct sidewalks. Property owners are then given thirty days after notice is mailed to complete the work.
If the owner fails to comply, the city may:
complete the repair itself,
bill the property owner,
and pursue collection through special taxation procedures authorized under Illinois law.
In other words, the city can repair the sidewalk and then place the cost onto the adjoining property owner.
Accessibility Standards Have Changed Everything
One of the least discussed portions of the ordinance involves federal accessibility standards.
In 2022, Freeport updated its ordinance to require compliance with PROWAG standards — the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines.
That means sidewalks are no longer merely neighborhood walkways.
They are federally regulated public accessibility infrastructure.
Modern sidewalks must now comply with requirements involving:
ADA-compliant slopes,
wheelchair accessibility,
cross-slope measurements,
detectable warning panels,
accessible curb ramps,
landing requirements,
and engineered grading standards.
Those requirements dramatically increase construction complexity and cost.
But this is where the debate becomes even more controversial.
Because while adjoining owners may be expected to pay for many repairs and upgrades, cities themselves receive:
taxpayer funding,
state infrastructure money,
federal grants,
accessibility funding,
and public works resources
to maintain and upgrade sidewalks.
Individual property owners do not.
Homeowners do not receive federal ADA grants.
Small businesses do not receive public infrastructure budgets.
Landlords do not receive municipal engineering departments.
Yet adjoining owners may still be expected to personally fund improvements necessary to bring publicly used sidewalks into compliance with federally mandated accessibility standards.
That contradiction raises a very legitimate public question:
If sidewalks are important enough for federal regulation, grant funding, public infrastructure planning, and municipal accessibility mandates, at what point do they stop being truly “private responsibility”?
The Legality Becomes Murkier When Cities Selectively Replace Sidewalks
This is where the issue becomes politically and potentially legally controversial.
Because if adjoining owners are truly responsible for sidewalks, many residents believe that responsibility should be enforced consistently across the community.
But in reality, municipalities often selectively repair sidewalks:
near schools,
in downtown districts,
along heavily trafficked corridors,
in grant-funded projects,
or in areas prioritized by the city.
Meanwhile, other residents may simply be told:
“You’re responsible for fixing it yourself.”
That inconsistency creates a very real public concern.
Because if the city:
retains authority over sidewalks,
controls standards,
requires permits,
enforces specifications,
selectively replaces sidewalks using taxpayer dollars,
accepts grant funding for accessibility improvements,
and treats sidewalks as public infrastructure for planning purposes—
then many residents naturally begin asking:
Is this truly private responsibility? Or is the city simply shifting financial burdens whenever convenient?
Legally, cities generally have broad discretion regarding infrastructure spending priorities.
But politically and philosophically, the issue becomes much murkier.
Because from the perspective of many residents, the system can appear inconsistent:
one homeowner receives a repair notice and thousands in costs,
another area receives publicly funded sidewalk replacement,
downtown projects receive grant money,
certain neighborhoods receive ADA upgrades,
while others are told to fend for themselves.
That creates the perception — fair or unfair — that responsibility changes depending on what is financially or politically convenient for the city at a given moment.
Public Events Create Another Layer of Risk
The issue becomes even more complicated during large public events.
Throughout the year, the City of Freeport actively encourages residents and visitors to utilize sidewalks during community events such as wine walks, festivals, Tutty Baker Fest, downtown celebrations, and community-wide garage sale events.
During some events, alcohol consumption is not only permitted but actively encouraged within designated public areas.
Those events increase:
pedestrian traffic,
congestion,
wear and tear,
spill risks,
trip hazards,
and the overall likelihood of accidents occurring within public right-of-way.
Yet despite encouraging and benefiting from these events, the city still largely places ongoing maintenance responsibility and potential liability exposure onto adjoining property owners under Chapter 1026.
That creates another legitimate public question:
If the city actively promotes and facilitates large-scale public use of sidewalks for economic development and entertainment purposes, should adjoining property owners still bear so much of the legal and financial risk associated with infrastructure they do not fully control?
Especially when those same owners cannot:
restrict public access,
regulate event traffic,
control alcohol consumption,
or determine how public right-of-way is utilized during city-supported events.
For many residents and business owners, that imbalance further reinforces the feeling that responsibility has been shifted onto private citizens while control remains firmly in the hands of government.
Snow Removal Is Also the Owner’s Responsibility
Section 1026.21 requires owners and occupants adjoining sidewalks to remove snow and ice within twelve hours after snowfall ends.
Violations can result in fines ranging from $20 to $400 depending on timing and payment.
Again, responsibility falls directly on adjoining owners and occupants rather than city crews.
But even the snow removal issue exposes another contradiction many residents regularly experience firsthand.
While property owners are held responsible for clearing sidewalks and may even face fines for failing to do so, the city itself simultaneously contributes to many of the very conditions property owners are later expected to correct.
During winter storms, snow removal operations conducted through the city’s Public Works Department — currently contracted through Fehr Graham — routinely involve plowing snow from public streets into driveway aprons, curb lines, and adjoining sidewalks.
As snow piles accumulate, melt, refreeze, and become compacted, sidewalks can experience:
accelerated cracking,
surface shifting,
ice buildup,
drainage problems,
and faster long-term deterioration.
In many neighborhoods, residents spend significant time and money repeatedly clearing or treating snow and ice conditions partially created by the very street plowing operations intended to maintain public roadways.
That creates another difficult reality for property owners:
they may ultimately be held financially responsible for maintaining sidewalks impacted not only by weather and public use, but also by municipal snow removal operations over which they have no control.
Again, many residents are not arguing against snow plowing or public safety efforts.
They are simply questioning whether the current system fairly distributes responsibility when the city itself actively contributes to the wear, deterioration, and hazardous winter conditions property owners are later cited or held responsible for addressing.
The Good Side of the Ordinance
There are legitimate reasons ordinances like this exist.
Sidewalks are critical infrastructure.
Children use them to walk to school.
Senior citizens rely on them for mobility.
Disabled residents depend on them for accessibility and independence.
Poorly maintained sidewalks create genuine injury risks and accessibility barriers.
The ordinance also creates standardized construction requirements intended to improve safety and consistency throughout the city.
The Bigger Question
The debate is not really about whether sidewalks matter.
They absolutely do.
The debate is about fairness.
Because property owners are expected to:
maintain sidewalks,
clear sidewalks,
repair sidewalks,
comply with engineering standards,
obtain permits,
potentially defend lawsuits,
and absorb major costs—
all while having limited authority over infrastructure primarily used by the public and regulated by the city.
F4F Chairman’s Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson
This ordinance exposes one of the largest disconnects between local government and ordinary residents: many people genuinely do not understand where public infrastructure responsibility ends and private property responsibility begins.
Most residents see a sidewalk and naturally assume:
“That belongs to the city.”
But under Freeport law, the city has largely passed the buck.
It has shifted much of the maintenance responsibility, financial burden, snow removal responsibility, and potential liability exposure onto adjoining property owners while still maintaining ultimate authority and control over the sidewalks themselves.
That is the part many residents struggle to accept.
Because property owners are expected to:
pay for sidewalks,
maintain sidewalks,
clear sidewalks,
comply with city regulations,
obtain permits,
follow engineering standards,
potentially defend legal claims,
and repair infrastructure heavily used by the general public—
without possessing full ownership rights or authority over the space itself.
Meanwhile, government entities continue treating sidewalks as public infrastructure whenever:
federal funding is available,
accessibility mandates apply,
grant programs are offered,
public festivals are promoted,
or infrastructure priorities are established.
That contradiction is impossible to ignore.
As I publicly stated while running for Mayor in 2025, the replacement, repair, and structural maintenance of all public sidewalks should ultimately become the responsibility of the City of Freeport — not individual property owners.
Not only can this change be done, it should be done.
We must have safe sidewalks.
And right now, in far too many parts of Freeport, we simply do not.
If sidewalks are truly public infrastructure located within public right-of-way and used by the entire community, then maintaining the structural integrity of that infrastructure should be treated as a core governmental responsibility just like streets, alleys, storm sewers, and other public systems.
At the same time, snow and ice removal policies should also be reviewed.
While I support property owners being held accountable for keeping sidewalks reasonably clear and safe during winter weather, I also recognize that many of the products, tools, and methods currently used by residents can accelerate sidewalk deterioration over time.
Salt damage, repeated freeze-thaw cycles, mechanical scraping, and improper snow removal equipment can all contribute to cracking, shifting, and long-term structural decline.
If the city ultimately assumes responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and replacement, it may actually benefit both taxpayers and the community for snow and ice management practices to become more standardized and coordinated citywide.
That could include:
better guidance on approved products,
city-supported treatment programs,
coordinated snow removal efforts,
or long-term infrastructure preservation strategies designed to extend sidewalk lifespan while still protecting public safety.
Because at the end of the day, no reasonable person is arguing against safe sidewalks.
The real debate is whether the current system fairly distributes responsibility for infrastructure that:
exists within public right-of-way,
is regulated by government,
is heavily used by the public,
and increasingly serves as part of federally regulated accessibility infrastructure.
That is a conversation Freeport should no longer avoid having.