HB3166 requires each county board of education to create standardized school safety mapping data for schools as part of the existing crisis response plan and school safety program framework. The mapping data must be detailed and interoperable with public safety systems used by local, state, and federal emergency responders, and it must include features such as true-north orientation, fixed coordinates, verified floor plans over current aerial imagery, labeled rooms and exits, and the locations of hazards, utility controls, key boxes, AEDs, trauma kits, parking areas, athletic fields, roads, and neighboring properties. The bill also requires the data to be created, stored, and maintained in the United States and to be usable without additional software purchases or access fees.
The bill directs that the mapping data be shared with the state board of education, the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and local first responders, including police, fire, EMS, and other entities identified by the school crisis response planning team. It also requires local school systems to consult with and receive approval from the primary law enforcement agency serving the district before procurement to ensure the mapping data meets statutory requirements. Counties may receive up to $4,500 per school, subject to available funding, and the requirements take effect September 1, 2026. The bill further exempts the mapping data from disclosure under the state Freedom of Information Act.
The bill’s impact is to add a new section to West Virginia’s education code, specifically §18-9F-10a, expanding school safety planning obligations for county boards of education. It creates a new statutory mandate for standardized digital mapping products and establishes rules for distribution, security, procurement review, and funding support, while also limiting public access to the data through a FOIA exemption. Affected parties include county school boards, local law enforcement, emergency responders, the state board of education, and Homeland Security and Emergency Management.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It passed the House 97-0, the Senate 32-0, and the House again 94-2 after the Senate amended the title, indicating broad bipartisan agreement that the measure would improve emergency preparedness and school safety. The near-unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed as a practical public safety measure rather than a partisan issue.
The main points of contention, to the extent any are evident from the record, are limited. The bill’s detailed technical requirements, the requirement that data be stored exclusively in the United States, the need for law enforcement approval before procurement, the FOIA exemption, and the cap of $4,500 per school could raise implementation or cost concerns, but the voting history shows little visible opposition. The two no votes on final House concurrence are the only sign of any disagreement, and no committee transcript is available to show specific objections.
HB3166 adds §18-9F-10a to the West Virginia Code and imposes a new statewide requirement that county boards of education produce standardized school safety mapping data meeting specified technical and security standards. It affects school safety planning, emergency response coordination, procurement practices, and public records law by mandating interoperability with emergency systems, requiring consultation with local law enforcement, providing limited funding eligibility, and exempting the data from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The bill appears to have been received very favorably. It passed both chambers overwhelmingly and with little recorded opposition, suggesting broad agreement that standardized school mapping data would improve emergency response and school safety. The final House concurrence vote included only two no votes, indicating that any concerns were limited and did not significantly affect overall support.
No committee discussion is available, so specific objections are not documented. Potential areas of concern include the cost and administrative burden on county boards, the requirement that data be created and stored exclusively in the United States, the mandate for law-enforcement approval before procurement, and the FOIA exemption limiting public access. However, the near-unanimous votes indicate that these issues did not generate substantial opposition among lawmakers.