Case Name: POLK COUNTY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC., on behalf of its members and all Homebuilders and Homeowners of Polk County, Hickman Homes, Inc., Tyler Homes of Polk County, Inc., and Florida Homebuilders Association, Inc., Appellants, v. POLK COUNTY, Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2009-02-27
Citations: 32 So. 3d 65
Docket Number: No. 2D08-1998
Parties: POLK COUNTY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC., on behalf of its members and all Homebuilders and Homeowners of Polk County, Hickman Homes, Inc., Tyler Homes of Polk County, Inc., and Florida Homebuilders Association, Inc., Appellants, v. POLK COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
Judges: KELLY, J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 32
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
POLK COUNTY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC., on behalf of its members and all Homebuilders and Homeowners of Polk County, Hickman Homes, Inc., Tyler Homes of Polk County, Inc., and Florida Homebuilders Association, Inc., Appellants, v. POLK COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D08-1998.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 27, 2009.
Amy Brigham Boulris and John W. Little, III, of Brigham Moore, LLP, West Palm Beach, for Appellants.
Gregory T. Stewart, Harry F. Chiles, and Carly J. Schrader of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, and Michael S. Craig, Polk County Attorney, and Linda L. McKinley, Deputy County Attorney, Bartow, for Appellee.

Opinion:
DAVIS, Judge.
Appellants, Polk County Builders Association, Inc.; Hickman Homes, Inc.; Tyler Homes of Polk County, Inc.; and Florida Homebuilders Association, Inc., challenge the constitutionality of Polk County Ordinance 05-48 by arguing that article IX, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution expressly preempts Polk County from participating in funding the voter-approved ballot initiative to reduce class size. After a review of the language of article IX, section 1(a), we find that it fails to meet the test for express preemption. "Express preemption requires a specific legislative statement; it cannot be implied or in ferred." Browning v. Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc., 968 So.2d 637, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238, 1243 (Fla.2006); Phantom of Clearwater, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 894 So.2d 1011, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting Polk County's motion for summary judgment and the subsequent final judgment entered in favor of Polk County.
Affirmed.
KELLY, J., Concurs.
VILLANTI, J., Concurs with opinion.