October 5th, 2007 

The county must now find someone to build on the property it invested $93.3 million into.

Years of planning and preparation in the county's $93.3 million Murdock Village investment were put in jeopardy as the site's development firm abruptly abandoned the 870-acre project Tuesday.

Stock Development CEO Brian Stock cited "market conditions" as the reason for backing out in a statement. Stock had proposed to build 2,869 residential units and 1.7 million square feet of commercial space within the project, which is framed by U.S. 41 to the north and S.R. 776 to the south. The Naples-based company's tentative agreement called for it to pay off Charlotte County's debt in the project by 2018.

An upset County Commissioner Tom D'Aprile, who did not vote for Stock Development when the proposal was approved in April, said Tuesday he was not surprised at the announcement.

"Stock Development never had the money to do this project. That's really the bottom line," D'Aprile said. "He (Stock) was hoping that his development in Naples would take off."

When asked where the county must go from here, D'Aprile responded:

"We should all go to hell, obviously, because this thing should have never come to this point."

The deal called for an initial payment of $27.4 million from Stock Development to go toward the $93.3 million in bonds taken by the county. The money was used to finance purchasing the land and to cover legal fees associated with taking the land through eminent domain.

The county is currently paying $4.1 million per year in interest alone on $88.3 million in bonds from Bank of America. With no company currently bankrolling the costs, the county is paying over $11,000 per day to cover interest, without paying a cent towards the bonds.

The county first heard the company was no longer involved around lunchtime on Tuesday, county spokeswoman Joyce Ross said. But Commissioner Tom Moore said he had heard rumors that the company might leave the table prior to the announcement.

"I'm sorry to hear that, but it's not a disaster," Moore said. "If it can't happen, and we and they couldn't reach the terms they want, at least we're not hung up in arguments and whatnot, so at least the project is free to move forward."

Ross said the commission will decide how to proceed at its Oct. 10 commission meeting.

"They can do a variety of things and we have no idea right now how they will be going, but we have lots of options," she said. "We're moving forward positively."

But D'Aprile was not so positive about the news Tuesday.

"I am so disgusted with all of this," he said.

He said he and Commissioner Matt DeBoer were the two who voted against the deal, and that he felt Stock Development was not the right firm for the job.

"I wanted him to succeed, but I knew, in my heart, I knew, my sixth sense kicked in, and I knew he couldn't do it," D'Aprile said.

Unlike D'Aprile, most officials chose to remain tight-lipped Tuesday. The attorney for Stock Development, Geri Waksler, forwarded all Murdock-related inquiries to Stock without comment. Stock Development was also forwarding questions to Ross, as was County Administrator Bruce Loucks.

Still in the air is a $200,000 deposit made by Stock Development once the deal was agreed upon. D'Aprile said he is unsure if the county is entitled to keep the money, but that he feels they should to cover costs.

"I certainly would want to keep that money just as a good-faith type of thing," he said.

D'Aprile said he has faith in Kitson and Partners, who have contracted with the county to develop Babcock Ranch. D'Aprile put his support behind Kitson and Partners when the commission approved Stock Development.

A spokeswoman for Kitson and Partners, April Herrle, said the company would be open to resuming talks with the county.

A similar response was given by Frank J. Stringer, senior vice president of Forest City Land Group, the company which came in second in the county's Murdock Village selection process.

"We have not been contacted by anybody yet," Stringer said. "Should we be contacted, we will gladly talk to the county again."

Among the options the county can exercise at the Oct. 10 meeting is approval of the second-place bidder, Forest City Land Group, if the company's April offer still stands. The county could also reconsider all of the proposals, or request new ones.

Given the current financial situation in the housing market, D'Aprile said he understands why Stock walked away from the deal.

"He's looking at the financing involved, and there's no way he could possibly have done it," D'Aprile said. "I don't blame the guy for doing it. If I was in his position, I would leave, too."

Moore said he felt the companies that wanted in on Murdock Village in April were "very capable bidders." He said he is optimistic that the county will resolve the dilemma.

"This is a very, very large project, and things like this -- disappointments -- come along," he said.

By NEIL HUGHES

Englewood Sun Staff Writer