Florida Statute 218.075 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 218
FINANCIAL MATTERS PERTAINING TO POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 218.075

218.075 Reduction or waiver of permit processing fees.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Environmental Protection and the water management districts shall reduce or waive permit processing fees for counties with a population of 50,000 or less on April 1, 1994, until such counties exceed a population of 75,000 and municipalities with a population of 25,000 or less, or for an entity created by special act, local ordinance, or interlocal agreement of such counties or municipalities, or for any county or municipality not included within a metropolitan statistical area. Fee reductions or waivers shall be approved on the basis of fiscal hardship or environmental need for a particular project or activity. The governing body must certify that the cost of the permit processing fee is a fiscal hardship due to one of the following factors:

(1) Per capita taxable value is less than the statewide average for the current fiscal year;

(2) Percentage of assessed property value that is exempt from ad valorem taxation is higher than the statewide average for the current fiscal year;

(3) Any condition specified in s. 218.503(1) which results in the county or municipality being in a state of financial emergency;

(4) Ad valorem operating millage rate for the current fiscal year is greater than 8 mills; or

(5) A financial condition that is documented in annual financial statements at the end of the current fiscal year and indicates an inability to pay the permit processing fee during that fiscal year.

The permit applicant must be the governing body of a county or municipality or a third party under contract with a county or municipality or an entity created by special act, local ordinance, or interlocal agreement and the project for which the fee reduction or waiver is sought must serve a public purpose. If a permit processing fee is reduced, the total fee shall not exceed $100.

History.—s. 1, ch. 94-278; s. 8, ch. 98-258; s. 25, ch. 2004-305; s. 4, ch. 2012-205.

F.S. 218.075 on Google Scholar

F.S. 218.075 on Casetext

Amendments to 218.075

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 218.075

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 218.075.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 218.075

Total Results: 18

CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING, INC. v. THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BROWARD COLLEGE

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2022-09-07T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: contains a substantially similar provision. See § 218.75, Fla. Stat. (2012-2014). It is unnecessary

Pedro Fajardo v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2016-06-08T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 193 So. 3d 1019, 2016 WL 3176968, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8824

Snippet: United States, 282 U.S. 687, 694, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), a defendant’s right of confrontation

Fehringer v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2008-03-26T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 976 So. 2d 1218

Snippet: In Alford v. U.S., 282 U.S. 687, 692, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), the United States Supreme Court

Watts v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2008-02-15T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 973 So. 2d 1271, 2008 WL 398824

Snippet: court erred in imposing investigative costs of $218.75 because the State failed to provide required documentation…State's request for investigative costs of $218.75. Further, the record reflects that before imposing

Ago

Court: Fla. Att'y Gen. | Date Filed: 2007-01-30T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: combination of these four sources." Section 218.075, Florida Statutes, in providing for the reduction…hereby nullified and repealed." 5 Section 218.075(4), Fla. Stat. Florida Attorney General

Holmes v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1990-03-08T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 557 So. 2d 933, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1377, 1990 WL 20398

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), reversed the conviction, stating

Teague v. Teague

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1989-10-25T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 551 So. 2d 1242, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2497, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6035, 1989 WL 128065

Snippet: on present value, he computed her share to be $218.75 per month. He awarded custody of the children to

Jaggers v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1988-12-19T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 536 So. 2d 321

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931); Gamble v. State, 492 So.2d 1132

Brownlee v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1983-12-14T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 442 So. 2d 1049, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25126

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931). I would reverse and remand for

Evanco v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1977-08-18T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 350 So. 2d 780, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16681

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), as follows: “It is the essence

Crespo v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1977-04-04T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 344 So. 2d 598

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), stated: `Even if the witness

Fulton v. State

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1976-07-08T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 335 So. 2d 280

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), stated: Even if the witness were

Hassberger v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1975-10-10T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 321 So. 2d 577

Snippet: according to Alford v. U.S., 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), questions "which tend merely…Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931). A witness' prior address

Grimes v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1975-10-10T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 321 So. 2d 584, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15560

Snippet: Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L. Ed. 624 (1931), which initially set the perimeters

Lee v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1975-07-31T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 318 So. 2d 431

Snippet: supra. In Alford v. U.S., 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), cited in the Davis case, where

Moore v. State

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1975-02-21T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 308 So. 2d 563, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14534

Snippet: v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed 624. Here the prosecuting attorney’s questions

United States v. Hulley

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1959-04-17T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 111 So. 2d 38, 1959 Fla. LEXIS 1612, 3 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1412

Snippet: 99 L.Ed 268; United States v. Scovil, 348 U.S. 218, 75 S.Ct. 244, 99 L.Ed. 271; United States v. Colotta

McGourin v. Town of DeFuniak Springs

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1906-06-15T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 52 Fla. 556

Snippet: $11.25; docket fee in Supreme Court, $12.00. Total, $218.75.” The facts of this case are very similar to those