Case Name: ARENA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-03-18
Citations: 708 So. 2d 976
Docket Number: No. 97-1242
Parties: ARENA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 708
Pages: 976–980

Head Matter:
ARENA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-1242.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 18, 1998.
Rehearing, Clarification, Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied May 8, 1998.
Stanley H. Wakshlag, Luis M. O’Naghten and Harry A. Stewart of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., Miami, for appellant..
John J. Copelan, Jr., County Attorney, and Anthony C. Musto, Chief Appellate Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
William S. Spencer and Robert Paul Kee-ley of Ellis, Spencer and Butler, Hollywood, for Amicus Curiae Gold Coast Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.
Kathleen M. Phillips and Osnat K. Rind of Phillips Levy & Rind, P.A., Coral Gables, for Amicus Curiae Broward Building And Construction Trades Council.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Arena Development Company, Ltd., filed a declaratory relief action against appellee, Broward County, Florida, seeking a declaration of their rights and obligations under a contract for the development of the Broward County Civic Arena. Specifically, appellant sought a ruling from the court declaring that Broward County's Prevailing Wage Ordinance did not apply to the contract entered between the parties. Following an adverse ruling, appellant, Arena Development Company, Inc., appeals the Order on Final Hearing for Declaratory Relief in favor of Broward County rendered below.
With respect to the contract entered between the parties, we hold the better procedure would have been to state with specificity the applicability of the prevailing wage ordinance within the contractual agreement. We affirm however, the order of the trial court and hold that section 2.01, Ordinance No. 83-72 does not prevent the application of the prevailing wage ordinance in this case.
AFFIRMED.
POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
GROSS, J., dissents with opinion.