The Middlesex County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund (JIF) voted to close the public hearing on the 2025 fund budget and discussed a reduction in force alongside a shift to a third‑party administrator to handle claims. Staff said the personnel changes were taken to reduce payroll expenses while the fund awaits external decisions and additional funding.

The change to a third‑party administrator (TPA) was described during public questions about the budget. Staff said the TPA was added to line items and that the vendor name would be disclosed at a later time. Staff gave partial cost figures during the discussion, including a $64,900 figure referenced for a partial period and a separate reference to roughly $100,000 for a partial‑year conversion; staff said these amounts would cover the remainder of the year — approximately two months — including conversion work. Staff also confirmed the most recent payroll covered five employees and that subsequent payroll costs would mainly be reports and tax filings.

The fund’s counsel explained the shift to the TPA and staff reductions was a response to a multi‑year lapse in obtaining additional funding and to reduce operating expenses. A public commenter asked who would serve as the custodian of records for Public Records Act requests after staff departures; staff said requests should be directed to the executive director or general counsel for response.

The board took three procedural actions during the meeting. First, commissioners voted to close the hearing on the 2025 fund budget. Second, the board voted to enter closed session to discuss claims and contractual matters. Finally, the chair announced approval of claim payment authorization and other actions; the public transcript records the announcement but does not include the detailed vote text for that final item.

Quotes and attributions in this report come from meeting remarks. A JIF staff member described the rationale for the payroll reductions as: "the commissioners have had to take steps to reduce their expenses" and said a reduction in payroll expense "would help the conclusion." A member of the public asked whether the vendor had been selected; staff replied the vendor details would be disclosed at a later time.

The meeting did not include a named vendor for the TPA nor a finalized, single definitive TPA contract amount in the public record of the meeting. Several figures were cited in public discussion and will require follow up for exact contract terms and vendor identity.