IT staff asked the Utah County Commission to approve a package of cybersecurity and IT requests on Oct. 21 that would establish an internal information‑security team, expand software and professional‑services funding, and replace aging GIS hardware.

Patrick (IT/ISF staff) described applications already built into the county's ISF budgets and said any change in approval would affect departmental ISF charges. Patrick and Brandon explained that the cybersecurity ask is intended to move the county from a reactive posture to a more preventive stance by adding personnel who can tune alerts, watch traffic and act on incidents specific to county systems. Presenters said the recommended team would include multiple positions (a senior, a junior and an analyst was noted in the packet) and that the cost would be billed back to departments through the ISF based on FTE allocation.

IT staff detailed components of the request: an estimated software and professional‑services package (a portion of which was described in the packet as $395,600 for software/professional services and $120,000 for contractors/consulting), penetration testing and annual third‑party assessments, and one‑time equipment such as a plotter replacement in the GIS division (presenters estimated typical plotters at roughly $10,000 with a service agreement). Staff said some software and professional‑service costs could be reduced if personnel are hired and the county can internally manage onboarding and tuning of those systems.

Presenters noted that federal support through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has been reduced, increasing local costs for penetration testing and other services. They also discussed cyber‑insurance (the county has a cyber rider reported at $2 million coverage included in a trust‑managed premium) and the limits of insurance when data or trust are lost in an attack.

Commissioners raised questions about how ISF charges would be allocated across departments and asked for a clearer analysis of cost assignment and one‑time versus ongoing expenses. IT staff said they currently plan to allocate costs based on number of FTEs served but agreed a usage‑based analysis (for example, by role and device usage) would be more precise and said they would return with more detail.

No formal vote was taken Oct. 21; commissioners asked staff to provide a fund‑by‑fund breakdown and to run scenarios showing different salary‑study percentage assumptions.