HB 1411
In CommitteeHouse
Assumed revenues
Limiting assumed revenues to projected revenues by the economic and revenue forecast council.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill limits how state agencies and the governor can use projected or assumed revenues in budget requests, requiring them to rely primarily on official revenue forecasts and clearly separate those from revenues based on proposed legislation. It also strengthens budget balance requirements and capital planning standards.
- Requires the governor’s budget to use only officially forecasted revenues (from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council or Office of Financial Management) as the baseline, with any adjustments (e.g., for proposed legislation or assumptions) clearly documented.
- Prohibits 'assumed revenues'—revenues based on proposed laws or policy changes—from being used to fund ongoing operating expenses unless explicitly tied to enacted legislation.
- Mandates that the governor’s budget leave a positive ending fund balance in the general fund and related funds, and cap proposed spending (‘projected maintenance level’) to available fiscal resources for the next biennium.
- Requires capital budget documents to include detailed project cost breakdowns, long-range facility plans, and estimates for operation and maintenance of new projects (especially for recreation/wildlife habitat), improving transparency and planning.
- Requires consistent formatting of budget documents across biennia unless the legislature approves changes, ensuring comparability and accountability.
Who is affected
- State agencies — State agencies must follow stricter rules for budget requests, including using only officially forecasted revenues (or adjusted versions of them), and must clearly separate assumed revenues from actual projected revenues in their budget submissions.
- Governor's Office — The governor must submit budget documents that adhere to strict revenue and spending limits, including ensuring the budget leaves a positive general fund balance and does not exceed available fiscal resources for future years.
- State Legislature — The legislature must review and approve budget documents using consistent formatting and must approve any changes to reporting formats between biennia, increasing transparency and comparability of budget data.
- Washington residents — Residents benefit from more stable state finances, as the bill enforces balanced budget requirements and limits spending to available revenues, helping avoid structural deficits.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating a positive ending fund balance reduces the risk of structural deficits, helping prevent future budget crises that could lead to deep cuts in public safety services (e.g., State Patrol, corrections, emergency response) during downturns.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a), Sec. 2(1)(a)Capping the 'projected maintenance level' at available fiscal resources helps prevent overpromising on K-12 and higher education funding, reducing the risk of recurring shortfalls that force schools to cut programs or lay off staff.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b), Sec. 2(1)(b)Requiring detailed project cost breakdowns—including O&M estimates for capital projects—improves transparency and accountability in housing and infrastructure spending, helping prevent cost overruns that ultimately burden taxpayers through tax increases or service cuts.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(i), Sec. 1(6)(p)Prohibiting 'assumed revenues' from funding ongoing operations reduces the risk of budget gimmicks—e.g., relying on projected business license fees from unenacted legislation—which can lead to recurring deficits that destabilize small businesses that depend on stable state contracts and services.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(5)(c)(i)Standardizing budget document formats across biennia improves comparability and accountability, enabling better oversight by local governments, watchdog groups, and residents—helping prevent misallocation of funds that disproportionately impact low-income communities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)
Potential Concerns (5)
The requirement to maintain a positive ending fund balance and cap spending at 'available fiscal resources' may constrain the state’s ability to respond to emerging public safety crises (e.g., wildfire response, opioid crisis, mental health emergencies) without new revenue, potentially delaying or limiting emergency funding.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a)-(b), Sec. 2(1)(a)-(b)The formula for 'available fiscal resources' excludes revenue from enacted legislation and relies on official forecasts, which may reduce flexibility for local governments that depend on state grants and shared revenue when legislative solutions (e.g., new transportation or housing policies) are needed to address local needs.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(c)(ii), Sec. 2(2)(a)By prohibiting 'assumed revenues' (e.g., projected business tax receipts from new incentives or economic development policies) from funding ongoing operating expenses, the bill may discourage targeted economic development strategies—especially for rural or disadvantaged regions—where job creation relies on upfront investment that isn’t fully recouped within the biennium.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(c)(i), Sec. 2(2)(a)While the bill requires capital budget documents to include operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for recreation and wildlife habitat projects, it does not require dedicated funding sources for those O&M costs—potentially leading to underfunded long-term stewardship of conservation lands, especially if legislative approval is needed to appropriate O&M funds separately.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(o), Sec. 1(6)(p)The requirement for legislative concurrence to change budget document formats may slow modernization of reporting systems, increasing administrative burden on local governments and agencies that must adapt to outdated formats while trying to meet new transparency or equity reporting mandates.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(7), Sec. 1(6)(t)
Who Is Most Affected
State agencies face stricter constraints on budget requests and must document assumptions transparently; this may reduce their flexibility to propose innovative or emergency programs but improves long-term budget credibility.
Local governments benefit from more stable state funding and reduced risk of sudden cuts, but may be constrained in their ability to leverage new legislation (e.g., housing or transportation policies) to access state support without guaranteed revenue streams.
Low- and middle-income residents benefit from reduced risk of service cuts during downturns, but may be harmed if the state avoids using policy-based revenue (e.g., capital gains tax) to fund needed programs due to strict forecasting rules.
Large businesses and real estate developers may benefit from more predictable capital planning and fewer sudden regulatory shifts, but lose flexibility to advocate for targeted incentives that rely on assumed future revenues.
Nonprofits and community-based organizations that rely on state grants may benefit from more transparent and stable funding processes, but could face delays if agencies avoid proposing new programs due to strict revenue assumptions.