Committee hears bill to expand apprentice tax credit for construction employers

Representative Curtis Schomer introduced House Bill 908 to expand Montana’s existing employer tax credit so it explicitly includes apprentices in construction trades. Proponents said the change would make it easier for employers to recoup training costs and to reinvest in apprenticeship programs.

Bill Ryan, education coordinator for Anderson Construction, testified the company spends more than $5,000 per apprentice per year and has grown from 16 to more than 60 apprentices since 2022. “Tax credits like this are fundamental to helping us reinvest money into the program so we can grow our employees and we can grow workforce,” Ryan said.

Sheridan Hoyer of the Montana Chamber of Commerce testified the expansion matches the chamber’s workforce-development priorities and “just adds apprentice to an existing tax credit that employers already can use.” Commissioner Sarah Swanson of the Department of Labor and Industry said the department administers the existing credit and would continue as verifier under the expansion.

Commissioner Swanson told the committee the draft bill as written applies specifically to construction apprentices (including roofing, plumbing, electrical and carpentry). She said Montana currently has about 3,150 apprentices statewide and estimated that 67 would qualify under the bill’s income and employer-size thresholds; those 67 led the department to an estimated fiscal impact of roughly $78,000 if all were veterans eligible for the higher credit level.

The bill would provide $750 per qualifying apprentice or $1,500 if the apprentice is a veteran, with an estimated average fiscal impact of about $4,000 per employer under current enrollment assumptions. The credit is a temporary pilot in the bill, expiring Dec. 31, 2028; Commissioner Swanson noted employers prefer predictability because apprenticeships typically span about four years.

Committee members asked whether the credit could be expanded beyond construction and whether the sunset should be removed; proponents and the commissioner said expansion would increase fiscal cost and that the sponsor might explore removing or changing the sunset if the committee wished. The hearing closed with the sponsor requesting a green light to move the bill forward; no final vote was recorded in the hearing.