Crow Wing County Grapples with Rising Insurance Costs and Cybersecurity Threats

At the latest Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners meeting, discussions revolved around the county’s insurance challenges, particularly concerning rising reinsurance costs and increasing cyber claims. The meeting also addressed property development issues, labor agreements, and infrastructure projects.

02:32A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a presentation from Mr. Sinsky regarding the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (MCIT), which serves as the insurer for Crow Wing County. Sinsky detailed the rising costs of reinsurance, especially for property insurance, which saw a substantial 10% increase over the past year. To mitigate these expenses, MCIT adjusted its retention levels, raising casualty retention from $850,000 to $1 million and work comp retention from $500,000 to $1 million, resulting in notable savings on reinsurance premiums.

05:16Furthermore, Sinsky emphasized the importance of cybersecurity, noting that cyber claims have become a concern for the county. A graph presented during the meeting highlighted an upward trend, with a peak of $1.7 million in total cyber claims payments. Despite this, there was some positive news, as the county reported a decrease in ransomware claims thanks to improved training and security measures. Approximately 90% of these claims originate from email-related issues.

The commissioners engaged in a discussion about the county’s premium payments and the allocation of tax dollars. Sinsky acknowledged the importance of transparency in financial matters and committed to providing further information regarding the management of MCIT’s reserves and investments. This financial dialogue highlighted the ongoing challenge of managing costs effectively while ensuring comprehensive coverage and services for the county.

28:03Another focal point of the meeting was the preliminary plat approval for Hunter Lake Acres, a development project consisting of seven lots in Wolford Township. The planning commission had previously recommended approval, but concerns about easement and access points prompted further discussion. A county attorney clarified that while the easement’s validity was affirmed, issues regarding its location or width were civil matters outside the board’s jurisdiction. Public comments were solicited, with a resident raising concerns about potential landlocking of property due to the easement agreement. After deliberation, the board approved the preliminary plat.

53:50The board also addressed a labor agreement involving law enforcement locals, specifically Local 16, representing around 49 correctional officers. The tentative agreement included a 2.5% pay increase for 2025 and a 3% increase for 2026. Updates included the addition of Juneteenth as a paid holiday and changes to bereavement leave to include life partners. Adjustments were also made to the Paid Time Off accrual process to better accommodate new hires, alongside increases in healthcare savings contributions.

44:16In terms of infrastructure, the meeting covered several key projects, including a budget amendment for a salt brine building project. This initiative aims to enhance snow removal operations by increasing the brine capacity on trucks, thereby reducing reliance on traditional salt. The board discussed the potential environmental benefits of using brine, which could lead to significant savings on salt costs and improved environmental management. Despite the challenges associated with chloride runoff from salt, the board recognized its continued effectiveness and economic viability for winter road maintenance.

57:57Additionally, the meeting included updates from the County Sheriff on local emergency management activities, emphasizing the importance of tornado sirens for severe weather alerts. The County Attorney and Administrator provided brief reports, while a commissioner expressed gratitude for recent road improvements and the county’s rapid response to storm damage.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly: