Relating to college campus safety
HB4592 requires each state institution of higher education in West Virginia to create standardized campus safety mapping data for emergency response use. The bill sets detailed technical and content requirements for those maps, including compatibility with public safety software, printable and electronic formats, true-north orientation, fixed grid coordinates, verified accuracy through on-site walkthroughs, floor plans over current aerial imagery, and site-specific labels for buildings, rooms, exits, stairwells, hazards, utility controls, AEDs, trauma kits, parking areas, athletic fields, roads, and neighboring properties.
The bill also requires that the mapping data be created, stored, and maintained exclusively within the United States, and that it be provided at no cost and permanently made available to local first responders such as police, fire, EMS, and other relevant local entities. Before procurement, institutions must consult with and receive approval from the primary law enforcement agency serving the campus, including county, city, municipal, or sheriff’s departments. The bill further provides that the data is not subject to disclosure under the state’s public records law.
HB4592 adds a new section to West Virginia Code §18B-4-5c, imposing a statewide campus safety mapping mandate on public colleges and universities. It affects state institutions of higher education, local law enforcement, fire departments, EMS, and other emergency response agencies by standardizing how campus emergency maps are created, shared, and maintained. It also creates a public-records exemption for the mapping data, limiting disclosure under the state Freedom of Information Act.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the Legislature. It passed the House 93-0, the Senate 31-0, and the House again 94-0 on concurrence, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous approval at each stage. The lack of recorded committee discussion in the provided materials suggests little visible opposition in the available record.
No major contention is reflected in the provided votes or transcripts, but the bill’s detailed requirements could raise practical concerns for institutions responsible for implementation. Potential points of concern include the cost and administrative burden of producing and updating highly detailed maps, the need to coordinate with local law enforcement before procurement, and the decision to exempt the data from public disclosure. Those issues would most likely matter to higher education administrators, campus police, and public safety agencies, though no explicit opposition is shown in the record provided.