Council wrestles with soaring fire-department personnel costs as per-diem strategy resurfaces

Cumberland — Town finance and council members pressed town staff on March 24 over large increases in the fire department personnel budget and a plan to rely more on per-diem staff to curb overtime costs.

The finance committee and council reviewed detailed line items in the proposed FY26 budget for the department, which includes pay categories labeled “full time,” “per diem,” “station pay” for call-company training and “call pay” for event-driven responses. The discussion focused on a proposed increase in per-diem budget lines and how that compares with overtime and full-time staffing costs.

Why it matters: Fire and emergency services make up a large portion of Cumberland’s municipal personnel costs. The committee sought evidence that the department’s staffing model and proposed per-diem strategy will reduce net cost and not degrade service or long-term workforce health.

Most of the discussion centered on operational definitions and the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) rules that give full-time employees the first right to fill available shifts. Under the current approach, if no full-time employees accept an open shift, department leaders may schedule per-diem personnel to fill the gap rather than forcing overtime. Staff described per-diems as a day-rate, at-will classification that can be less expensive than forced overtime (which is time-and-a-half under the CBA).

Councilors and public speakers pressed staff for concrete metrics. Participants noted that the per-diem line rose from roughly $527,000 in the February 2019 budget to nearly $1 million in the proposed budget. Committee members asked for context: how much of that change reflects conversions from a per-diem model to more full-time positions in recent years, how much reflects added positions (the town now shows more full-time firefighters than it did in 2019), and whether call-volume or population growth justifies the increase.

Councilors also raised operational concerns: whether per-diem and call-company personnel receive the same health screening and preventative care now provided to full-time staff, and whether per-diem recruits from neighboring towns could create fatigue risks if they hold shifts across multiple jurisdictions. Staff agreed to confirm screening coverage for per-diems and to report back on safeguards for cumulative hours worked across jurisdictions.

Other budget details flagged during the discussion included duplicate or outdated line items that staff removed (a $2,700 equipment-maintenance overlap was taken out after cross-checks) and questions about AED replacement versus an annual service contract. Committee members asked for clarification and breakdowns of those capital versus maintenance decisions ahead of the next budget meeting.

What’s next: Councilors asked staff to return with metrics that link staffing levels to population or call-volume changes, a plan for per-diem health screening and fatigue safeguards, and year‑end projections showing whether the per-diem approach reduces overtime expense. The council left the item open for further review at upcoming budget meetings.

Ending: The finance committee indicated it will continue the conversation at the next budget workshop dates (March 31, April 14 and April 28) and seek supporting data before finalizing FY26 appropriations.