Three Fishermen, City Spar Over Chiquita Lock Removal; Council Hears Calls to Drop Fee Lawsuit

Three fishermen who petitioned the city over the planned removal of the Chiquita lock and several supporters used the Jan. 8 Cape Coral City Council public‑comment period to press the council to abandon a city action seeking attorneys’ fees and to clarify why the city’s bill became large.

Jim Collier and Kevin Sparks, two of the three petitioners who challenged the lock removal, told the council they did not file a frivolous petition and have hired appellate counsel because they believe errors occurred in the administrative process. “We had no improper purpose in our challenging the removal of the lock,” Collier said. He added the petition was a response to a public notice and that the petition was granted, a hearing occurred and they lost at the hearing; now the city is seeking fees against them.

City attorney and council discussion: The city attorney told the council the petition was an administrative challenge under Chapter 120 and that when the petitioners proceeded in a manner the city characterized as “in violation of law,” the city placed them on notice and sought to recover attorneys’ fees and costs when they were unsuccessful. The city attorney said the city had retained outside experts and performed depositions and motion practice that increased costs. “Responding to that…required us to retain experts. And experts in this matter were not cheap at all,” the attorney said.

Public supporters and critics: Several public speakers in red shirts defended the fishermen, saying the challenge was aimed at protecting waterways and the environment. Cheryl Anderson, a longtime volunteer, said the prospect of being on the hook for “$2,000,000” is crushing to the petitioners and urged the council to “drop the lawsuit.” Multiple speakers said the legal action chills residents who speak up about environmental permits.

Council response and next steps: Council members repeatedly said they did not want to see residents personally liable for large sums, and several asked the city attorney to explain how the bill grew. The city attorney said the petitioners’ conduct compelled the city to respond with expert witnesses and discovery; that work drove up the city’s costs. Council member Kaduk asked the city attorney to re‑explain the timeline and legal posture. The city and petitioners confirmed that an administrative hearing remains scheduled Feb. 24–28 and that pending motions and appeals may affect any fee proceeding.

Context: Petitioners said they previously signed an agreement that halted future litigation but now face a separate sanctions process and potential fee claims tied to an October 7 judicial order. The petitioners said they have retained appellate counsel and intend to challenge parts of the record.

Ending: No council vote was taken Jan. 8. Council members urged patience with the legal process while expressing sympathy for petitioners’ concerns and asking the city attorney to clarify the legal basis and size of potential recovery.