Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 216.221 (2025)

Appropriations as maximum appropriations; adjustment of budgets to avoid or eliminate deficits.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: Chiles v. Child. a, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chiles v. Child. a, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1991). · cites it 22× “Section 216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), involves a statutory scheme which permits the reasonable exercise of appropriately shared authority between the executive and legislative branches.”

Chiles v. United Fac. of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1993). · cites it 6× “1991), the legislature amended section 216.221. Ch. 92-142, § 64, Laws of Fla.”

Hillhaven Corp. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 625 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · cites it 11× “1991), holding that section 216.221 was facially unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers.”

Florida Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 164 F.R.D. 257 (N.D. Fla. 1995). · cites it 2× “Chiles held that Fla.Stat. § 216.221 (1989) violated the principle of separation of powers by assigning to the executive branch the authority to reapportion the appropriated budget because the authority delegated was not guided by sufficiently definite legislative standards.”

Interest of A.A. v. State, 605 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 2× “Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, wherein the court invalidated Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), giving the governor and members of the cabinet, acting as the Administrative Commission, the power to reduce all state agency budgets by a sufficient amount in order to…”

Hillhaven v. Dept. of Health & Rehab Serv., 625 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · cites it 11× “1991), holding that section 216.221 was facially unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers.”

Miami-dade Cnty. v. City of Miami (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). “The issue before the Court was “whether the legislature, in passing section 216.221, violated the doctrine of separation of powers by assigning to the executive branch 19 the broad discretionary authority to reapportion the state budget.”

AA v. State, 605 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 2× “Children A, B, C, D, E, and F , wherein the court invalidated Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), giving the governor and members of the cabinet, acting as the Administrative Commission, the power to reduce all state agency budgets by a sufficient amount in order to…”

— 216.221(1) — 2 cases

Chiles v. United Fac. of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1993). “1991), the legislature amended section 216.221. Ch. 92-142, § 64, Laws of Fla.”

Chiles v. Child. a, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1991). “Section 216.221, Florida Statutes (1989), involves a statutory scheme which permits the reasonable exercise of appropriately shared authority between the executive and legislative branches.”

— 216.221(2) — 6 cases

Chiles v. United Fac. of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1993). “1991), the legislature amended section 216.221. Ch. 92-142, § 64, Laws of Fla.”

Hillhaven Corp. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 625 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “1991), holding that section 216.221 was facially unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers.”

Interest of A.A. v. State, 605 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, wherein the court invalidated Section 216.221(2), Florida Statutes (1989), giving the governor and members of the cabinet, acting as the Administrative Commission, the power to reduce all state agency budgets by a sufficient amount in order to…”

Hillhaven v. Dept. of Health & Rehab Serv., 625 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “1991), holding that section 216.221 was facially unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.