Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 216.221 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 216.221 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 216.221 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 216.221

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE
Chapter 216
PLANNING AND BUDGETING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 216.221
216.221 Appropriations as maximum appropriations; adjustment of budgets to avoid or eliminate deficits.
(1) All appropriations shall be maximum appropriations, based upon the collection of sufficient revenues to meet and provide for such appropriations. It is the duty of the Governor, as chief budget officer, to ensure that revenues collected will be sufficient to meet the appropriations and that no deficit occurs in any state fund.
(2) The Legislature may annually provide direction in the General Appropriations Act regarding use of any state funds to offset General Revenue Fund deficits.
(3) For purposes of preventing a deficit in the General Revenue Fund, all branches and agencies of government shall participate in deficit reduction efforts. Absent specific legislative direction, when budget reductions are required in order to prevent a deficit under the provisions of subsection (7), each branch shall reduce its General Revenue Fund appropriations by a proportional amount.
(4) For purposes of preventing a deficit in the General Revenue Fund, appropriations to the legislative branch that are voluntarily placed in their reserve by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or by both, may not be reduced, but may be included in any deficit reduction plan.
(5)(a) If, in the opinion of the Governor, after consultation with the Revenue Estimating Conference, a deficit will occur in the General Revenue Fund, he or she shall so certify to the commission and to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. No more than 30 days after certifying that a deficit will occur in the General Revenue Fund, the Governor shall develop for the executive branch, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall develop for the judicial branch, and provide to the commission and to the Legislature plans of action to eliminate the deficit.
(b) If, in the opinion of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, after consultation with the Revenue Estimating Conference, a deficit will occur in the General Revenue Fund and the Governor has not certified the deficit, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall so certify. Within 30 days after such certification, the Governor shall develop for the executive branch and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall develop for the judicial branch and provide to the commission and to the Legislature plans of action to eliminate the deficit.
(c) In developing a plan of action to prevent deficits in accordance with subsection (7), the Governor and Chief Justice shall, to the extent possible, preserve legislative policy and intent, and, absent any specific direction to the contrary in the General Appropriations Act, the Governor and Chief Justice shall comply with the following guidelines for reductions in the approved operating budgets of the executive branch and the judicial branch:
1. Education budgets should not be reduced more than provided for in s. 215.16(2).
2. The use of nonrecurring funds to solve recurring deficits should be minimized.
3. Newly created programs that are not fully implemented and programs with critical audits, evaluations, and reviews should receive first consideration for reductions.
4. No agencies or branches of government receiving appropriations should be exempt from reductions.
5. When reductions in positions are required, the focus should be initially on vacant positions.
6. Reductions that would cause substantial losses of federal funds should be minimized.
7. Reductions to statewide programs should occur only after review of programs that provide only local benefits.
8. Reductions in administrative and support functions should be considered before reductions in direct-support services.
9. Maximum reductions should be considered in budgets for expenses including travel and in budgets for equipment replacement, outside consultants, and contracts.
10. Reductions in salaries for elected state officials should be considered.
11. Reductions that adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare should be minimized.
12. The Budget Stabilization Fund should not be reduced to a level that would impair the financial stability of this state.
13. Reductions in programs that are traditionally funded by the private sector and that may be assumed by private enterprise should be considered.
14. Reductions in programs that are duplicated among state agencies or branches of government should be considered.
(6) If the Revenue Estimating Conference projects a deficit in the General Revenue Fund in excess of 1.5 percent of the moneys appropriated from the General Revenue Fund during a fiscal year or when the cumulative total of a series of projected deficits in the General Revenue Fund exceeds 1.5 percent of the moneys appropriated from the General Revenue Fund, the deficit shall be resolved by the Legislature.
(7) Deficits in the General Revenue Fund that do not meet the amounts specified by subsection (6) shall be resolved by the Governor for the executive branch and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the judicial branch. The Governor and Chief Justice shall implement any directions provided in the General Appropriations Act related to eliminating deficits and to reducing agency and judicial branch budgets, including the use of those legislative appropriations voluntarily placed in reserve. In addition, the Governor and Chief Justice shall implement any directions in the General Appropriations Act relating to the resolution of deficit situations. When reducing state agency or judicial branch budgets, the Governor or the Chief Justice, respectively, shall use the guidelines prescribed in subsection (5). The Executive Office of the Governor, and the Chief Justice for the judicial branch, shall implement the deficit reduction plans through amendments to the approved operating budgets in accordance with s. 216.181.
(8) The Chief Financial Officer also has the duty to ensure that revenues being collected will be sufficient to meet the appropriations and that no deficit occurs in any fund of the state.
(9) If, in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer, after consultation with the Revenue Estimating Conference, a deficit will occur, he or she shall report his or her opinion to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in writing. In the event the Governor does not certify a deficit, or the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives do not certify a deficit within 10 days after the Chief Financial Officer’s report, the Chief Financial Officer shall report his or her findings and opinion to the commission and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
(10) When advised by the Revenue Estimating Conference, the Chief Financial Officer, or any agency responsible for a trust fund that a deficit will occur with respect to the appropriations from a specific trust fund in the current fiscal year, the Governor for the executive branch, or the Chief Justice for the judicial branch, shall develop a plan of action to eliminate the deficit. Before implementing the plan of action, the Governor or the Chief Justice must comply with the provisions of s. 216.177(2), and actions to resolve deficits in excess of $1 million must be approved by the Legislative Budget Commission. In developing the plan of action, the Governor or the Chief Justice shall, to the extent possible, preserve legislative policy and intent.
(11) Once a deficit is determined to have occurred and action is taken to reduce approved operating budgets and release authority, no action may be taken to restore the reductions, either directly or indirectly.
History.s. 31, ch. 69-106; s. 14, ch. 71-354; s. 18, ch. 83-49; s. 21, ch. 91-109; s. 64, ch. 92-142; s. 1170, ch. 95-147; s. 13, ch. 98-73; s. 30, ch. 2000-371; s. 12, ch. 2001-56; s. 242, ch. 2003-261; s. 32, ch. 2005-152.

F.S. 216.221 on Google Scholar

F.S. 216.221 on CourtListener

Amendments to 216.221


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 216.221

Total Results: 9

Chiles v. CHILDREN A, B, C, D, E, AND F

589 So. 2d 260, 1991 WL 250980

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 1991 | Docket: 1441475

Cited 61 times | Published

case is whether the legislature, in passing section 216.221, violated the doctrine of separation of powers

Chiles v. United Faculty of Florida

615 So. 2d 671, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 176, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 493, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2806, 1993 WL 64606

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 1993 | Docket: 1185043

Cited 17 times | Published

legislative policy-making authority granted by section 216.221(2) is illustrated by the total elimination

Florida Ass'n of Rehabilitation Facilities, Inc. v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

164 F.R.D. 257, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20462, 1995 WL 707365

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 1995 | Docket: 66313248

Cited 4 times | Published

924-926 (Fla.1978). Chiles held that Fla.Stat. § 216.221 (1989) violated the principle of separation of

Hillhaven v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB SERV.

625 So. 2d 1299

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1993 | Docket: 474082

Cited 3 times | Published

reduced HRS's budget accordingly, pursuant to Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides

AA v. State

605 So. 2d 106, 1992 WL 193018

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 1992 | Docket: 1702218

Cited 1 times | Published

D, E, and F, wherein the court invalidated Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), giving the governor

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY v. CITY OF MIAMI

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2020 | Docket: 20622807

Published

Court was “whether the legislature, in passing section 216.221, violated the doctrine of separation of powers

Hillhaven Corp. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

625 So. 2d 1299, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11185

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1993 | Docket: 64743816

Published

reduced HRS’s budget accordingly, pursuant to Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides

Interest of A.A. v. State

605 So. 2d 106, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8918

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 1992 | Docket: 64669975

Published

D, E, and F, wherein the court invalidated Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), giving the governor

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Sep 28, 1987 | Docket: 3258597

Published

reduction in anticipated revenues. Question Two Section 216.221, F.S., permits the Administration Commission