San Dimas City Council
February 11, 2025

Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 9
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
• New regulations such as ACF and SB 54 carry undetermined cost risks, and service providers may factor these uncertainties into their pricing and proposals, leading to potentially higher rates than necessary.
• Opportunity for the designation of “Collection Service Districts” within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries would be limited based on the size and service magnitude of the jurisdiction. Essentially, splitting the City into Collection Service Districts would require a larger City than San Dimas.

Option 2: Sole Source Negotiation of a New Franchise Agreement Under Option 2, the City would initiate negotiations with WM for a new longer-term (10-15 year) Franchise Agreement, focusing on the key terms that align with both the City's needs and evolving legislative requirements. This would include an extended term, regulatory compliance, new rates, and service guarantees.

Key Elements of Option 2 Sole Source Negotiation
• Negotiation of New Franchise Agreement Terms:
o The agreement would be renegotiated for a longer term (10 or 15 years), allowing for stability and long-term planning.
o Terms would include updated provisions for compliance with new regulations like SB 1383, SB 54, and ACF.
o New rates would be negotiated, including the updating of rate adjustment methodologies to address inflation, regulatory compliance costs, and changes in service levels.
o Service guarantees and compliance standards would be added and/or updated for clarity, minimizing risk, and ensuring performance.
• Sole Source Negotiation Process:
o The City would negotiate directly with WM, bypassing a competitive procurement process initially.
o A key feature of this approach is an "off-ramp" for transitioning to a competitive procurement process if sole-source negotiations do not lead to a successful agreement. This provides the City with flexibility if negotiations fail to reach a satisfactory outcome.

Option 2 Benefits
• Retains continuity of service from a known provider.
• WM already understands the City’s unique service requirements and customer needs, which can make the sole-source negotiation process smoother and more aligned with City objectives.
• Streamline through a sole-source procurement and provide for a quicker negotiation timeline.
• Reduces service disruptions or transition issues, by avoiding the transition to a new service provider.
• The sole-source negotiation would focus on updating existing terms, limiting service impacts to only those adjustments made through the negotiation process (as opposed to a complete overhaul that might come with a new provider or agreement).

Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 10
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Option 2 Considerations
• Prior to commencing a sole-source negotiation process, the City must set a target date and assign corresponding resources to pivot to competitive negotiations if negotiations fail.
• Limits flexibility in adjusting terms to market conditions. • Current uncertainty around regulatory changes (e.g., ACF, SB 54) may introduce cost risks to a sole-source negotiation, prior to maturity and implementation of regulations.

Option 3: Three Year Extension of Existing Agreement
Under Option 3, the City would consider extending its current agreement with WM for an additional three-year period, from January 1, 2028, through December 31, 2030. To maintain continuity of services, programs, and regulatory compliance, all parties must agree to the following terms in a timely manner to avoid a lapse of the current agreement.

Key Elements of Option 3 Extension
• Three-year extension of the existing Agreement with limited modifications to the contractual terms. The Agreement under a three-year extension would include the following:
o Retention of current rate adjustment methodology, which includes annual rate adjustments based on service and disposal components, in alignment with regional industry standards.
o Continued compliance with SB 1383 services and programs, as mandated by CalRecycle.
o Inclusion of additional contractual provisions requiring WM to procure ROWP to meet the City’s SB 1383 procurement targets. WM has agreed to procure ROWP for the 2024 targets as a courtesy; however, the extension may require formalizing this commitment. The City may also need to update the agreement to reflect other SB 1383-related organic waste programming provided by WM outside the current agreement.

Option 3 Benefits
• Continuity of service from a provider familiar with the City’s unique needs and customer base.
• Avoidance of a negotiation or RFP process that is prolonged or complicated by the uncertainty of pending regulations.
• Potential rate stabilization for the near term, compared to market rates and the potential future impacts of regulatory changes.
• Mitigation of the risks associated with transitioning to a new service provider. • Additional time to understand and adapt to the regulatory impacts of SB 54 and ACF regulations.
• No disruption to services for residents, businesses, and the City.

Option 3 Considerations
• Potential limitation on negotiating additional enhancements to the agreement, such as expanded services (e.g., bulky item collection), updated performance standards, or revised compensation terms.
• Constraints on the City’s ability to adjust agreement terms and rates in response to evolving market conditions in the short term

Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 11
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Based on the analysis, City staff recommends Option 3: “Three Year Extension of Existing Agreement”. This option provides stability, ensures regulatory compliance, and offers time to navigate evolving industry trends and regulatory changes without the disruptions and risks associated with switching providers or negotiating a long-term agreement prematurely. The threeyear extension will also allow the City to prepare for future changes in the waste management landscape, including the transition to ZEV’s and new packaging regulations, while maintaining continuity of service for residents and businesses.

Key Reasons for the Recommendation

1. Regulatory Flexibility and Mitigation of Risk: The upcoming regulatory changes, particularly with the California Air Resources Board ACF regulation, SB 54, and SB 1383, create uncertainty. Extending the agreement allows the City to navigate these evolving regulatory landscapes while reducing the immediate risks and costs associated with transitioning to a new service provider or negotiating a long-term franchise agreement that might not adequately address these future challenges. The three-year extension also provides time to plan for a cost-effective implementation of ACF requirements and the broader impacts of SB 54.

2. Time to Assess Technological and Market Trends: By opting for a short-term extension, the City gains valuable time to observe the full impact of regulatory changes, including the financial implications of and technology options for transitioning to ZEVs, and to assess market trends. This additional time will allow the City to negotiate future contracts with a clearer understanding of costs, technological advancements, and regulatory compliance needs.

3. Continuity and Stability: Extending the current agreement with WM for an additional three years ensures continuity of service. WM has met their obligations under the current agreement except for some short-term issues during COVID-19. Additionally, any change that may result in changing service days would need to be well considered, planned for, and noticed.

4. Avoidance of Prolonged Negotiations in the short term: A three-year agreement extension delays the need for a full negotiation in the short-term facilitating a buffer during current regulatory uncertainty. Given the basic terms of a three-year extension, minimal negotiation should be required. This option also provides additional time for the City to negotiate again with an exclusive provider once ACF and SB 54 are better understood, further limiting uncertainty within a future negotiation process. A three-year extension also stabilizes costs for the near term, protecting the City and its residents from potential market volatility or regulatory-driven price increases.

5. Continuity of SB 1383 Compliance: The City has already implemented programs, services, and rates to comply with SB 1383, with WM playing a pivotal role in the City’s organic waste diversion programs. The extension would formalize WM’s continued support for these regulations, including the procurement of recovered organic waste products to meet the City’s procurement targets. The extension also allows the City to assess the effectiveness of SB 1383 programs prior to potentially impacting costs associated with a new franchise agreement.

ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration:

Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 12
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025

1. Competitive Procurement
A competitive procurement process offers the City an opportunity to explore more favorable rates, services, and contract terms by testing the market. However, this approach may introduce risk, including potential service disruptions and staff time required for both procurement and transition processes. Furthermore, regulatory uncertainties related to the ACF and SB 54 are unlikely to be resolved before the completion of the procurement process. As a result, there may be a need for unforeseen contract amendments or adjustments once a new agreement is in place.

2. Sole-Source Negotiation of a New Franchise Agreement This option entails negotiating a new, longer-term agreement directly with WM. While it ensures continuity with a known provider, it carries the risk of not addressing regulatory uncertainties related to the ACF and SB 54, which are unlikely to be resolved before completing a sole-source negotiation. As a result, the City Council may be asked to agree to a long-term contract without fully understanding the cost impact of these new laws.

Additionally, a sole-source approach may expose the City to potential rate increases, as it would bypass a market test for competitive pricing and limit the City's flexibility to adapt to evolving program and service needs in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren Marshall
Sr. Management Analyst

 












 !"#$

%
&
 '%()*+,,-# 
%
&


.%&%-



.
/0

1** 2
3 


&4 
*"5

2
!6 4 
&

,,1
789:;<=<>?@A<:;<BCD8E<@CDF?>A8G78HIH@CJKG?JDL;K?JCH>M<JA;?HA?JD:;<HN;8O8JA M<J>N@A?JAE8;BCH8> 4 2 3( P/QP



)P/QP+
'


0 

%
'
'


%
&4 
)
+
'
6 '
&



'

 


6
&

%
-
R



%


R

 
 


%


 
)
+.

%6

%

&R'
P/QP%
'
6



&


&



 S




%
%
&


%







6


T.P/QP%

%
% '
6&
''


%
&4 
6

'
S





.



 
 '
%
6



'

 
6

%%U
&


 '



%
''
%

%R'

&





 


%
.2

%



&
%


%
V
*T''
6

&&

 




%
-
R



%R







6

 


%
.
%
'
'



%
'&





 

'


%


W

&
'
&



'

 


6



%R

&
%



 


%
.

 &




%''





''


%
&4 

%
 '




6.

ATTACHMENT 2

 








 








!"#$%#&'#()
*+,-./$01234567858+5817933587:
;<=>?@A@BCDEFGHIJKHK<HKDJ<JLIJH<>FBM<JJKJNOFFHKJN
PQP
RRRST


SU

UUT
VR

VW
XU

RR

W

 

W
RUYT
VTT
U

TT
UVW

Y R


R
XZUR
T



Y
U

[

T
WR



T



U


U
\
 
T



R
T







R

UYYSY 
RR


 
UT
WR]



^

UU
RRURT


UT
VRW
R



UU

R
RU
_ R
XRR

UTR 
PQP
RRT
WU
U  
U
RR

W
U


U
  U
U

 
RRRTR`T














W
R
RR
`U


W

T
V
URX
*+,-abc0+d5&0+74e8,3f:033g375+7hi3:158+53j85e'9 ;<=>k@A@BCFl<CFmC<nHoC<JGpK=FANCFFqFJH r
U 


 
Ys\
R 
UU

RZ


WWR

TT
WUt

uU 
PQP
RRT
T

 
T
U
RRRT

R

^
 

U

T



W



T

URU
U
R T

T


rsuT

 T
WZXPQP
RR
T
U


 T


U

 X
RU\


RR


^R
W
U

 X

^
T
WPQP
U
R

SR 

 RR\

W






XPQP
RR
W


T
U

 
T

 X
;<=>k@v@o<GKMKH<HFoC<JGpK=FANCFFqFJHwFxKFyOFFHKJNyKHpzKH{|BCDNC<q<JL}FN<M;FMFGDJnFCFJGF~ \

 
U
SR

U

 U
 
YPQP
PQP

RR
TU
sU
€W
R 

UU
W
T
T
U



^


 
U UWXPQP
RR
U





 U

R_U

U

 R
Y
XX

 








 







!"#$%&'&()*"+),-./"01(/"*23)#-45/--6-*107/8-571)"1-9!-/6# :
;

<
=>=
??@;

;

 A??
;
@

=>=
??

;

;

 B
 
;

C
A:@
C
;

 
B
 
???

;
@;

D

;A;

  
??
;


;

;B
<AEA
FGHIJKLMNOPQGPMFMRSHTQPUVWGXYZQXG[Q\M]RG^PZRGX_UQHM`NRMMSMXP !"#$a&48-571)"1-!-/6#b)13c"#1-d"*"5-6-*1e%)*fg-/#7*6--1)*5#hi37j/#-"23k =>=
???@
l@

 
mn;

;o

;?;

<
@


;

B;
;



?
;

C

A;
 

???

l @
l@
l

;
A; 
 

@
@
?@?
@
@


 
;?D
 @?
A;
;;
=>=

?? ??







 

;B

@

;?
;

 A
!"#$a&p&q-r)#-./"01(/"*23)#-45/--6-*107/8-571)"1-9!-/6# =>=
?? 
C
C
?;@



 <@



;
;;A=>=
??C?@???s;
;


 
?
C
BA;
??
C

 
 =>=

;;

t@;
;
;

 A

;?
 
=>=
??@
C;
;

 BA
!"#$a&'&()*"+8-571)"1)7*d--1)*517q-r)-bu4gg/7r-(/"*23)#-45/--6-*1 E
B
 ;
C
;
;

 C?@

<A:
=>=
??
;
l@


l;

;;B
C







?sA
!"#$a&.&()*"+),-45/--6-*107/'7j*2)+v"2$-1
=>=
??@;
;

 
;





;
m

o;? 

<AA;

@

 ;;
E
w
;

?C

???

 ?

<w??
C
;
 @

;

;
;

  



A
!"#$a&x&v/-g"/-y1"00q-g7/107/'7j*2)+v"2$-1
=>=
??


@
 @;
;

 
;
D
?
m
oA=>=
??

;@


;

@

@

 








 





!

"
"##


$"
##
%


&
%
#
'
# 


%
$(
"

%

)*)
###+"

&


 #$
,-./012134546789:4.4;<-<=7;-;>9:4.4;<?4@7AA4;>-<=7;<7B=<CB7D;@=6 +" &
 "#"
#&#
)*)
##
%#& 

&

 "

#
"&
E$F"#"G

##
"
"" 
"G&   ""
##
#
 
"&


H

"

"H




""
"
$
)*)
##"# 
"""#
 
G&&&
%

##&

"#
 "#$
"(

#
H
##

&
#



 &#" 

""


"





$

IJJJKLMNOLJ
F
##&

"
&

H
#%
  
#
$"
 #

PQ

R"
%

"%#
H!#P


#

PS

$
H!
#
"





#

T

&&
%#$U
#

""

#

""
 
&


"&

#
 %$(#
H

 


#
#
$

 








 







!"#$%&'(!&&)*+",-+&
.....
/0
/11
1
2
//

3450


11


1


/1
//36/27


15
85
9:
;:<<=>::

/5?//=
5
3 
55

9:@:;
A=@BA<



?//=
5
3 3

5

8C8DEFGHE
GG

85




H/ I
8
5
J55H

 











 














!"" # $%&'(
)*''%+,-%. 
/0&!121345
6789:;;<8=>?@::;

/
0/ %
'/A/'%

,
 B BC,,
/ ,-%A%/
%
 /%
'

D
E

FGHIJIGK LMJN
*O%+
,-% PQQ2RPQS3
T%,/#/U%+V  $%/ PQ23RPQ13
#/U%+V  $%/P1(3RP1W3
T%,/X

+, %P113RP1(2
X

+, %X
0  P&W3RP123
X

,
X
0 P&S2RP&W2
XBC,,
/ ,-%T '' P&Q3RP&(2
Y<7:Z[\]^:=;:;
T B /B+_ /$%
'/+CCB,/%+%OA%
%
 /%
'

D
E

X
C`,
%a/ -%
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb#/%- , ,$cdTC,
% $%/ %
X,/' /% B#
`
,+a/ 
,bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbX+



e<??<=f68?<Z<:;
g
/A
,+0,
`,

'/
/
%/-,+%
`
%B_%
B /B_
/
0/ %
'_%
''C%C`%/

,$%B!
C

,A
,%B`0_%,C%/%h
,/%BA%/'/C_%+
,%R/%
%B
i
!A

_%B,/%+%OA%
%

B%
+/,`%B
`-%bc,CA
%C%,$_,
A
,+0!D% B_%/%_%'

D,$A/ +,+%
E
jc,

/
B /BA/ +,+%%RC ,
,-,+%

/+
,%
!
_
$__ /B+A,%
',-,+%
+ `%

%+
,%
/%h
%
b
j k%/
B_%% /%
%Rh
/%/_
/)%b$b!,'D_
/
 B33C,
%
 /%
A% 
i!,,

/%+/B%B
_/%%_
/
!,'D_
/
 B3C,
%
 /%
A% 
i!,,
/%+/B%B
D_
/
4b
XC,,C
C+_ /$%'%Rh
/%/_
/,
+_ /$%B'/ 0+
,%D/iA%/'/C%B, B 0b
j k%BC /i
A
R'RA+i%%OA%
%
l_D%-%/!D%C 0+_ /$% BC,,
/ ,-%/A/'%

,

,C%/%
%B_%A/-,
,'_%$B
 B
%/-,+%


+, %BD,__%
%+_ /$%
b
jc'

`+/ +/
 /%

%B!/%
%/-%
_%/,$_+_ /$% &2mC /i
Ab
j V,
% $%'%%
 /%`
%B_%/
BR/,AB,
+%'/C_%A,'/,$,b
 &",,$ ,T
AA/ B*OA%/k,%

T%/-,+%
 /%+-%/%B`0_,

+_%B

%''%%
 B%OA%
%
b











 














!""# $%&'&
()' *
+%,
*- $% ./%0+

1
*-%2

%23%%+$/%

+.%
+%
4%+$

%

%241 -+/2
. /15%6$6! +/
+%* *%

+'%%7!-%-%*
+%8+

4% /-%*
'-%
%.%
+%
6

9-+
%3++3
3'%%'/ *

+$%$ $%3%-
4%%%
4 +
-%2!++


+:%
15$+0%-%
/%
'
/
%/0+*%
7- 8%* $ + 
2%/
2+$' *
+%,
. /+*

//%;
+/%3%!+2%+'1

%/ +0%
! 2/%*33%2 


++
%

- 8%1<'
/*

+$-
/
6
=>?@AB>CD
9%3 + +-%'

8+$.
+*+%
'+

/ *%8+-* //+%/
2+$4

+%

+
+'/+ E
(33%/*+
F%%/
"+ 4+
+1)

/ *%5G&!HHH!HHHI**
//%*%JGK!HHH!HHHL$$/%$ %7
(9/:%/
M3.%
+5GN!HHH!HHH7
(#/'%

+
"+ 4+
+1)

/ *%5G&!HHH!HHHI**
//%*%JG&!HHH!HHHL$$/%$ %7
(+/%2 2O<I8%2L
"+ 4+
+1&5G&!HHH!HHH7
(P34/%

"+ 4+
+15GQ!HHH!HHHI**
//%*%JGQ!HHH!HHHL$$/%$ %7
(14%/"+ 4+
+15GN!HHH!HHHR *-
+37

L

*

+*
//%2+*3.
1+$8+- 22++
*0%/ $%
/
+3+
5%S*

2+$ 22++
+

/%2 28 +0%/
'

4/$ +%2/
%3%
74%*3%-%/%
.
+4+
+1'-%*
+% 2 /%+*

2%2+-%'%%
'/

%/0+*%
/2+/%**- /$%
4
 /%4+

%2+ 22++-%*/ * *
!.

 1./'%

+
/
23++
/ +0%'%%
6
=>TUVCD?B>WXBYZD>[\UA]DATVCD?
I
/+3%/%./+$ 24+

+$
1 %3-
*%/ +
2 /2'/3
-  /%2%
+$%2./0+2%
/*
+%

8+- 2% +
%2+0+*%'-%+3% 2*- /$%


*+ %28+--%+/%$ $%3% 28%1.+*

12+
*


-%
%8+-
/*
+%
 
/:+*:<''3%%+$69% /%

.
%
%2./0+2%
/*
+%
8+- *

3 +0+*%'/3 !4
8%8+

- 0%4+

-%*
+%'/+3%
.%*'/3+$
/+0+*%
-%+/
+;
%
/%;
+/%3%
6
^+

+$
'/./'%

+

%/0+*%
 2*- /$%
 /%

43+%2%0%/13-!+/2%/- 
/*
+%
* 
3/%*

%
13+/
/
%/0+*%
6

 &


2%
8 1*3. 1
34+
%
6

Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of February 11, 2025
From: Brad McKinney, City Manager
Prepared by: Michael O'Brien, Director of Administrative Services Subject: Report on the City’s Cybersecurity Posture
____________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY
Provide an overview of the City’s Information Technology Cybersecurity Posture and Project Initiatives for Fiscal Year Budget 2025-2026

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends the City Council:
• Receive and File the Staff Report
• Provide Further Direction and Discussion
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
No

FISCAL IMPACT
The 2024-2025 fiscal year budget included appropriated funds towards maintaining IT security. • $115,000 towards Security Technology Subscriptions and Licenses • $43,000 towards Computer Professional Services for Security • $38,000 towards IT Managed Services

BACKGROUND
Cybersecurity is a set of processes, best practices and technology solutions that help protect critical systems, data and network from digital attacks. Common types of cybersecurity threats consist of malware, compromised email from phishing and data ransom for demand of payment to restore access, hold hostage or expose to the internet.

City’s Cybersecurity Posture Page 2
For the Meeting of February 11, 2025
Cases within Cities, school districts, healthcare and law enforcement organization that has encountered cybersecurity compromise mostly stem from IT vulnerabilities with random targeted phished emails where the user follows through with an email request resulting in clicking on a link, downloading a file or signing into a spoofed account with their login credentials allowing bad actors to gain access and or capture that information. Threats to these vulnerabilities traditionally go through machine learning and attempt to gain access across networks based on the exposed user credentials. Triggers of these payloads are strategically planned and executed to cause the most amount of disruption for the organization.

These cyber threats could possibly have been avoided if basic safeguard measures were instituted with multifactor authentication (MFA), control user account access privilege rights and user email phishing awareness testing, training and exercise to name of few.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Using the cybersecurity frameworks and standards developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Center for Internet Security’s critical security controls (CIS), the City is combating threats with cybersecurity tools, people, processes and technologies to stay resilient and adapt to emerging risks from business disruptions, data theft, financial loss and reputational damage from an attack.

During the last computer equipment refreshed in 2018, equipment was provisioned with security controls, hardening the network and air gaping with best practice and policy to safeguard from potential cyber attacks. Antivirus software was deployed during implementation and strong password complexity requirements were imposed. User account access privilege rights were assigned based on roles of the organization. Backup of data were designed to have the 3-2-1 rule which recommends having three copies of data, stored on two different types of media, with one copy kept off site. Remote monitoring and management (RMM) tool carried out the asset and inventory, patch and update and third-party software management.

Transitioning over to Microsoft Office 365, the City enabled multifactor authentication (MFA) with compliance and security features for all assigned users and adopted cloud storage and cloud services. Regular automated backups and redundancies utilizing cloud are in place.

Highest standards to security and compliance are held to cloud vendors while engaging and building a rapport with consultants. Setup of alerts and notifications were added to detect and report of suspicious activity and attempted logins outside of a virtual perimeter on a demographic area using a location-based service (geo fence).

In 2019 the City entered into agreement with a cybersecurity company that provides security monitoring to detect and respond to cyber threats of on premises firewalls, servers, workstation and networks from cloud-based information assets of malicious activity such as cybercrime, ransomware and malicious software attacks. In the event the network detects a potential threat and or an abnormal behavior, the managed detection response (MDR) team will notify IT for containment, investigation and remediation.

Understanding the phishing and social engineering attack volatilities, the City since 2021 has partnered with a security awareness provider to administer simulated phishing exercise for staff to detect potential phishing emails. Random phish exercises are done frequently. Exercises are linked to training videos should they not detect a simulated phishing email. In addition, bimonthly training videos are mandated to stay informed on how to detect phishing emails.

City’s Cybersecurity Posture Page 3
For the Meeting of February 11, 2025
Microsoft outlook security features are also enabled to quarantine questionable incoming emails that are tagged as spam or phish. Users have the ability to review these held message and request to IT for release if found valid. All incoming email attachments are scanned for possible threats prior to delivering the attachment within the email message. Known harmful email attachments such as executables (.exe) and (.zip) are removed from emails prior to delivery. Links within outlook emails are also scanned prior to the webpage opening for enhance security.

Last year, the City engaged and participated with California Joint Powers Authority (CJPIA) to conduct a cybersecurity assessment with a cybersecurity and data privacy firm. The assessment included cybersecurity maturity assessment, internal network vulnerability assessment and external network vulnerability assessment. The findings report provided risk scores with identified vulnerabilities on recommendations for security improvements. City staff reviewed the report and mitigated the vulnerability areas to reduce the cybersecurity deficiencies.

State and Federal agency partners offer resources and support for cybersecurity resiliency. San Dimas is a member and subscriber to Cal OES California Cybersecurity Integration Center (CalCSIC) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) with Homeland Security. San Dimas takes part in CISA cyber hygiene service program offerings. The City is scheduled to perform a cyber assessment remote penetration test engagement beginning in March 2025 with CISA.

Looking ahead, staff will rely on the completed CISA assessment report to determine what additional security measures are necessary to address the identified vulnerabilities and remediate them with the recommendations provided in the report. The cost to implement any recommended enhancements is unknown at this time but we hope to have those estimates and incorporate them into the 2025-26 fiscal year budget.

Additionally, the City purchased new monitors, computers, and servers in 2019. It is recommended to replace hardware every 4 – 6 years. The current equipment is now starting year

6. Updating the equipment would also allow the City to update to the latest version of Microsoft windows platform when it is released, which would provide additional features and enhancements that staff will utilize to produce faster computing capabilities. Funding for hardware upgrades have been included in fund 100 to maintain capital infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

Respectfully submitted,
John Lee
Information Systems Manager