Resident tells council her children have been without running water; city attorney says courts must decide

A Freeport resident identified in the record as Rachel said she and her children have been without running water since April 7 and asked the City Council on May 12 to create an emergency alternative to the city’s renter affidavit so lawful occupants can restore service while custody and property disputes are resolved.

"I am here because my children and I have been without running water since April 7th," Rachel told the council during public comment, adding that she was not asking the city to adjudicate ownership but to close a policy gap that allows utilities to be used as leverage in family disputes.

City staff and the city attorney responded that the city’s current practice requires proof of legal interest in property (deed or lease) or a court order before establishing a utility account. The city attorney said allowing occupants with no demonstrated legal interest to create accounts would risk creating “tenant holdover scenarios” and expose the city to competing claims.

"If we allow someone to establish a utility account for property that they do not own or have at least hold interest in, that is an unbridled scenario," the city attorney said, noting the city would follow any controlling court order provided by the resident.

The attorney referenced Florida statutory protections for tenants and said the city relies on judicial orders when occupancy is disputed. He also noted Standing Administrative Order 2020‑31 (First Judicial Circuit) can be used in family law proceedings but that the standing order does not itself grant the city authority to override third‑party property rights.

Councilmembers expressed sympathy for the resident’s situation but agreed the city could not unilaterally restore service without a court order or an explicitly authorized change in policy. Staff said they will act if presented with a valid court order and encouraged the resident to pursue appropriate judicial relief.

There was no formal vote or policy change during the meeting. The council’s recorded next step was to accept staff’s advice that the city will comply with court orders; staff did not draft a new emergency affidavit at the meeting.