Nick Van Brown and Ethan Bergen of the Legislative Fiscal Division demonstrated multiple interactive tools the division maintains for legislators and staff and reviewed the statutory ‘‘5% plan’’ documents agencies submit for potential contingency reductions.

Van Brown described the interactive budget tool as ‘‘a digital version of the books that you have in front of you’’ that allows members to filter by fund source, program, ongoing vs. one‑time, and to compare versions (governor, subcommittee, near‑real‑time session versions). He showed how members can open program‑level views (base amounts and decision packages), filter for present law or new proposals and immediately see statewide or agency‑level impacts. He also demonstrated the tool’s version‑comparison capability, which will populate with house and senate versions during the session so members can quickly see where dollar differences occur.

Van Brown and Ethan Bergen also demonstrated a population and personal‑income forecast tool that uses county‑level forecasts and the decennial census and American Community Survey inputs to produce age pyramids and population projections by county; the forecasts feed other fiscal models (K‑12, university enrollment and HHS demand). Bergen showed a local‑government dashboard built from trial balance data (FY2018–FY2023) that maps municipal and county revenues and expenditures into standard bars chart of accounts categories (for example, taxes and assessments; intergovernmental revenues; public safety; public works). The local‑government tool allows users to drill into revenue sources (federal vs. state grants, property tax categories) and expenditure objects (personal services, capital outlay, debt service) and to compare counties or population cohorts.

Bergen also demonstrated a sales‑tax model that can produce hypothetical estimates for different tax rates (Montana’s constitutionally referenced 4% ceiling was noted) and disaggregate resident and nonresident spending; the nonresident share relies on tourism spending research. Staff said these tools are being refined based on legislator feedback and will update during session to reflect enacted changes.

On contingency planning, staff explained the statutory 5% plans are not automatic cuts but are required agency submissions that identify what would be reduced if a 5% general fund (and specified state special revenue) reduction were triggered by state fiscal conditions. The plans include prioritized lists of services to be reduced or eliminated, expected savings, and statutory consequences if a proposed reduction would cut a statutorily required service. Staff said the plans for most agencies are posted online in agency profiles and on committee pages and that the legislative offices will provide the committee with the collection of agency 5% plans and any outstanding plans (the legislative branch plan remained to be posted at the time of the briefing). Members were encouraged to review the back‑of‑binder 5% plan handouts and to direct staff questions to the agencies if they need operational details.