Committee hears proposal to reestablish ropeway safety board after lift incidents; members divided on need and liability language

Senate Bill 556, a proposal to reestablish a Board of Ropeway Safety to oversee passenger ropeways such as ski lifts and trams, drew lengthy testimony and a split committee vote. Supporters said the board would provide consistent inspection and a public oversight mechanism that is missing since the board was dissolved in 1997. Opponents raised technical concerns about liability language and questions remained about jurisdiction and insurance oversight.

Sponsor Willis Curti told the committee he introduced the bill after a serious lift fall two years earlier involving his constituent and a fatality at Red Lodge. "Our obligation is to provide health, safety and welfare to our citizens," Curti said. He described the proposed board as seven members including an attorney public member, a U.S. Forest Service or federal land representative, a Montana licensed professional engineer, a first responder or ski patrol representative and three ski area owners or operators.

Curti said the board would register ropeways annually beginning Oct. 1, adopt rules consistent with North American/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for passenger ropeways, and impose modest per‑device fees (chairlift $200, rope tow $100, aerial tram $300) and an assessment up to one quarter of one percent of gross receipts to fund operations. He said assessments would be collected on Dec. 31 each year and would support inspections, a technical committee and other board activities. Department of Commerce staff later confirmed 15 ski resorts in Montana have passenger ropeways, which informed the fiscal estimate.

The Department of Administration testified as a technical opponent on a narrow point: the bill's language would extend the Tort Claims Act defenses and immunity to "independent contractors" such as engineers hired to inspect ropeways. Don Harris, chief legal counsel for the department, asked the sponsor to remove language that would require the state to defend independent contractors. "Independent contractors are not going to want us to defend them," Harris said. He added sovereign‑immunity principles that apply to state employees do not apply the same way to private contractors and recommended removing that provision.

Informational witnesses told the committee the Department of Commerce would host the program if the bill passed. Witnesses from the Department of Revenue addressed technical questions about administrative and technology needs.

Committee members pressed practical questions: whether tribal or border‑straddling ropeways would be covered, whether summer trams and zip lines would be included, and whether insurers already require inspections and could provide oversight. Curti said the bill would apply year‑round to passenger ropeways on ski hills and that insurance companies do require inspections; he said the proposed board would add a layer of public oversight and transparency that some stakeholders say is lacking. Testimony described cases where the Forest Service relied on owner statements of compliance and occasionally had to hire out‑of‑state engineers for inspections.

Legal counsel's technical objection led Curti to agree to remove the independent‑contractor immunity language if the sponsor pursues the bill. After debate, the committee voted on the motion to pass SB 556; the motion failed (5 yes, 6 no). A subsequent motion to table the bill was adopted by the committee.

Why it matters: supporters described a transparency and safety gap for passenger ropeways that operate on a mix of federal and private land. Opponents and staff flagged unresolved questions about liability, the scope of jurisdiction and whether insurers or federal agencies already provide adequate oversight.

Ending: Committee members agreed the issue is important but divided on approach. The bill will not move forward this session from committee after the failed passage and tabling action.