The House Appropriations Committee chair’s 2023–25 operating budget proposal would appropriate $70.044 billion from funds subject to the outlook (NGFO). That’s $859.9 million more than has been proposed by the Senate Ways & Means Committee chair, and it would be an increase of 9.2% over enacted 2021–23 appropriations. (The House chair’s proposal would appropriate $359.0 million less than Gov. Inslee’s proposal.)

The House chair’s proposal does not include general tax increases. It would transfer $1.803 billion from the Washington rescue plan transition account (WRPTA, an unrestricted reserve account) to the NGFO, leaving just $297 million in the WRPTA. The proposal would not make any withdrawals from the budget stabilization account (BSA, the constitutional rainy day fund). Total reserves, including the unrestricted NGFO ending balance, the BSA, and the WRPTA, would be $2.610 billion at the end of 2025–27, which is 7.2% of estimated revenues. (By comparison, the Senate chair’s proposal would leave reserves of 10.2% of revenues at the end of 2025–27.)

The House chair’s balance sheet estimates that the unrestricted NGFO ending balance would be $181 million at the end of the four-year period. However, that figure relies on larger-than-normal assumptions about reversions. Reversions are appropriations that ultimately aren’t spent. The Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, as part of the budget outlook process, typically assumes that reversions will be about 0.5% of general fund–state appropriations.

Sometimes they increase that assumption based on known policy issues. For example, since June 2019, the outlook has included additional reversions related to K–3 class size compliance. (State funding for lower class sizes is tied to actual class sizes in a district, but not all districts were immediately compliant, resulting in reversions.) The class size reversions assumed in the official budget outlooks were $35 million for 2019–21. The January 2023 outlook assumed $10 million in class size reversions for 2021–23 and nothing for 2023–25.

The assumed reversions in the Senate chair’s budget proposal track pretty closely to the reversions assumed in the official January outlook. The House chair’s proposal assumes $435 million more in reversions than the Senate proposal (over the six-year period). According to the House chair’s budget summary, the difference is that it assumes that reversions in FY 2024 will be 1% of spending (because “actual reversions over the past three years have been higher than previously assumed”). Additionally, the proposal assumes K–3 class size reversions of $65 million in 2023–25 (“based on the most recent data”).

It’s possible the House chair’s reversion assumptions will come to pass. But since they are so much higher than the Senate chair’s assumptions (and the ERFC’s assumptions in January), relying on them to balance the budget seems questionable. Indeed, if you use the Senate chair’s reversion assumptions instead of the House chair’s, the House chair’s budget would not balance over four years. It would leave an unrestricted ending balance of negative $253 million.