Florida Statute 216.221 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 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 Casetext

Amendments to 216.221

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 216.221

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 216.221.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 216.221

Total Results: 20

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY v. CITY OF MIAMI

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-12-23

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

Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc., etc. v. MMB Properties, etc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-02-23

Citation: 211 So. 3d 918, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 204, 2017 WL 709484, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 370

Snippet: 2012); Highway 46 Holdings, LLC v. Myers, 114 So.3d 216, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The Fourth District, however

In the Interest Of: F.J.G.M.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-07-20

Citation: 196 So. 3d 534, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11078

Snippet: Yeboah v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 345 F.3d 216, 221 (3d Cir.2003). “Rather than being deported along

In the Interest Of: S.A.R.D.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-01-13

Citation: 182 So. 3d 897, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2016 WL 145999

Snippet: see Yeboah v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 345 F.3d 216, 221 (3d Cir.2003); M.B. v. Quarantillo, 301 F.3d 109

In the Interest of B.Y.G.m, a Minor

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-07-15

Citation: 176 So. 3d 290, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10729, 2015 WL 4268719

Snippet: 11(c)(6); Yeboah v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 345 F.3d 216, 221-222 (3rd Cir. 2003) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 105-405

Snelgrove v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-04-19

Citation: 107 So. 3d 242, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 303, 2012 WL 1345485, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 754

Snippet: 2009) (quoting Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla.1998)). Specifically, it provides that, during

Marek v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-07-16

Citation: 14 So. 3d 985, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 461, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1125, 2009 WL 2045416

Snippet: penalty-phase evidence." Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla.1998). The admissibility of hearsay, however

Hodges v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-10-14

Citation: 885 So. 2d 338, 2004 WL 2303643

Snippet: (Fla.2000), and Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla.1998), are distinguishable. In both Asay

Leerdam v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-09-17

Citation: 891 So. 2d 1046, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13723, 2004 WL 2070153

Snippet: So.2d at 161; cf. Wallace v. State, 851 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA) (finding no deprivation of the right

Marquard v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-11-21

Citation: 850 So. 2d 417, 2002 WL 31600017

Snippet: [7] See, e.g., Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla.1998) ("If it is easier to dispose of an

Perry v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-10-18

Citation: 801 So. 2d 78, 2001 WL 1241060

Snippet: Stat. (1997); see Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla.1998) (recognizing the "wide latitude permitted

Hillhaven Corp. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-11-01

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

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

Hillhaven v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB SERV.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-11-01

Citation: 625 So. 2d 1299

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

Chiles v. United Faculty of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-03-23

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

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

Interest of A.A. v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-08-13

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

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

AA v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-08-13

Citation: 605 So. 2d 106, 1992 WL 193018

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

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

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-10-29

Citation: 589 So. 2d 260, 1991 WL 250980

Snippet: declared unconstitutional sections 216.011(1)(ll) and 216.221, Florida Statutes (1989). The order was appealed

Goodlet v. Steckler

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-08-07

Citation: 586 So. 2d 74, 1991 WL 150406

Snippet: 4th DCA 1985). See also Jackson, 552 So.2d at 216, 221. But fraudulent concealment has not been raised

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1987-09-28

Snippet: Administration Commission procedure set forth in s. 216.221, F.S., a constitutionally sufficient method for

Suburbia Fed. S. & L. Ass'n v. Bel-Air Conditioning

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1980-07-09

Citation: 385 So. 2d 1151

Snippet: Rood v. Miami Air Conditioning Co., 193 So.2d 216, 221 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966), which is factually similar