LETTER: Enfield Fire Commissioners Respond To Ex-Official's Claims

ENFIELD, CT — At the December 2, 2024 Enfield Town Council meeting, a non-resident property owner and former commissioner of the Enfield Fire District made disparaging remarks about the fire departments in Enfield that cannot go unanswered.

After claiming he was the public works version of Dirty Harry, he claimed that the fire departments in Enfield are “the most inefficient service” provided in town. He used former town manager Ellen Zoppo-Sassu and councilman John Santanella’s attempt to browbeat the fire districts into consolidating as a means to slam the cost to staff the town’s five fire districts. He claimed that the combined budgets of the fire districts are “more than three times the cost of our waste removal service which is at your doorstep 10 times a month.”

Does this non-resident property owner not know (he does, he’s just ignorant) that the fire services in Enfield provide 24/7/365 service to residents of the town of Enfield? They are at “your doorstep” well over 10 times a month, a fact that this non-resident taxpayer ignores. He railed about the $16 million taxpayers pay for that 24/7/365 service, but for just over $1 per day per resident, that is a bargain if your home catches fire, you’re involved in a car crash, or you suffer a medical emergency.

Pitting the fire departments against public works is a cheap shot and is something that none of our firefighters would ever do. As a member of a collective bargaining unit, slamming other union members used to be verboten. Apparently, that is no longer the case. I pretty much guarantee you would not see one of our town firefighters going before the town council to slam public works

The non-resident property owner also claimed that the fire commissions in Enfield “are comprised of past firemen, their friends and their families.” Speaking for the Enfield Fire Commission, 2/3 of our commissioners had no previous affiliation with the fire district. Two have law enforcement experience while one has public safety communications experience. I cannot speak for the other four districts.

The non-resident property owner claimed Mayor Nelson’s district (Enfield) increased our budget by $1.1 million over the past two years. Guilty as charged. What this individual conveniently ignores is what Enfield Fire District residents got for that $1.1 million.

The Enfield district, once we implemented 24/7 coverage, went from 1,610 calls to over 2,200 in the first year, a near 37% increase in service to our taxpayers. Many of those calls occurred outside what our previous paid coverage was, and in many cases, Enfield fire personnel were first on scene for medical calls, which from a life safety standpoint you cannot put a price on. Moreover, our response to crashes on I-91 has increased significantly. Finally, we were able to increase by 25% qualified fire apparatus driver/operators.

The claim that the Enfield District “chased away volunteers” and “refused to work with the remaining fire districts toward consolidation” is at the least disingenuous and at the most a complete fabrication. As most people are aware and as other volunteer organizations can attest, volunteerism is way down. There are a number of reasons for that, but primarily current training requirements involve a tremendous time commitment from volunteers which many people are simply not willing to do. The Enfield Fire Commission has worked tirelessly along with the department’s administration to attract and retain volunteers.

Regarding consolidation, the non-resident property owner cited comments made by Santanella that by consolidating, there “could be significant savings, possibly millions” if an efficiency study was conducted. Santanella had zero basis for making those claims which were not backed by statistics or any type of actual study. He was basically just bloviating, yet his statement was accepted as fact.

The non-resident property owner cited a study conducted for Shaker Pines and Hazardville, which are in the process of consolidating, however that study did not take into account the unique situations in other fire districts. It also didn’t consider the fact that all consolidating fire districts would have to absorb the debt of the remaining districts. In other words, Enfield Fire District taxpayers would have to absorb any debt from the remaining four districts. That number recently stood at $6.3 million dollars, of which Enfield has zero underlying debt. It would be a disservice to Enfield Fire District taxpayers to absorb debt that wasn’t incurred by the district. That was the primary basis for the Enfield Fire Commission to defer joining any consolidation effort at this time.

The fact of the matter is, this non-resident property owner is a disgruntled former member of the Enfield Fire District and former commissioner who took his toys and quit after the other commissioners refused to play in his consolidation sandbox. He has long had an axe to grind with the Enfield Fire Department even though one of his family members enjoyed a long career with the department and was quite willing to avail himself of taxpayer money over that time.

We felt it was important to set the record straight so Enfield taxpayers have the real story, not the rantings of an unhinged non-resident property owner.

Vincent Grady, President
Patrick Droney, Vice President
Enfield Fire District #1 Commission

Patch welcomes letters to the editor on any topic, and reserves the right to edit letters for brevity or clarity. Email letters, including the writer's name, address and phone, to enfield@patch.com.