By Sharla Steinman
Loveland Reporter-Herald
LOVELAND, Colo. — Fire Chief Tim Sendelbach rejected a majority of the Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Board’s claims against him, including all claims that he intentionally tried to mislead the board and create division.
Sendelbach responded to the “just cause” reasons laid out in the board’s notice of intent to terminate his contract in a 40-page letter sent Wednesday. His written response was obtained through Global Relay, the city’s system for viewing public emails.
Sendelbach was placed on paid administrative leave Jan. 28 after a regularly scheduled board meeting where LFRA Board Chairman Jeff Swanty and Loveland City Manager Jim Thompson were appointed to a committee to handle a personnel issue. The entire board has since approved a notice of intent to terminate his contract.
The board has not publicly stated its reasons for pursuing termination and has refused to answer questions about what it refers to as confidential personnel matter. However, the Loveland Reporter-Herald was able to obtain the notice that laid out the board’s reasons for pursuing termination through an open records request.
The board’s reasons included unsatisfactory work performance, violation of authority policy, insubordination or refusal to perform assignments, as well as a few others. Sendelbach will have the opportunity to discuss these reasons with the board in a closed executive session at 9 a.m. Tuesday.
View Sendelbach’s full response to the board here,
Sendelbach Written Response to Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment Agreement by Lexipol_Media_Group
Recirculating 2023 Letter
Sendelbach began his response with stating that he believes many of the board’s reasons stemmed from allegations made in 2023 via an emailed letter from former chair of the Fire Rescue Advisory Commission Zachery Sullivan.
In his letter, Sullivan detailed many areas of concern regarding the chief, including lack of collaboration and harmony, treatment of LFRA employees, and Front Line Mobile Health.
Sendelbach stated that the claims in Sullivan’s letter are still being referenced despite being told by Swanty, during a performance feedback session in November 2023, that the allegations were investigated and that all is good ... no problem has taken place,” according to Sendelbach’s response.
However, Sendelbach claimed that documentation of an investigation doesn’t actually exist beyond the unfounded allegations that Sendelbach created a hostile work environment for Business Support Specialist Kristi Coleman.
Sendelbach further claimed that characterizations shared in Sullivan’s letter were present in following performance review sessions with Swanty and Director Paul Bukowski despite being told that everything had been resolved following Sullivan’s letter. He said they articulated concerns without context or substantiated findings during his last performance review in September, which he believes framed his leadership negatively to newly appointed City Manager Jim Thompson, who also serves on the board
Sullivan re-sent the letter to LFRA directors Feb. 1 , which made the letter available in Global Relay for public view.
“Taken together, these events demonstrate a sustained pattern in which allegations initiated by a former employee — never substantiated through an independent investigation — were nevertheless retained, informally referenced, and ultimately reintroduced both internally and publicly,” Sendelbach stated in his response.
Claims of misinformation
In the notice, the board made claims that Sendelbach continued to ask about board decisions after they were decided, spun them in a way to crews that suggested the LFRA board didn’t care about staff, and persistently shared misinformation and misrepresented data.
Sendelbach acknowledged that there have been times with the Loveland Rural Fire Protection District Board, not the LFRA Board, that he has sought clarification on board actions, adding that his intent stemmed from wanting to ensure decisions were clearly understood. He added that explanations to staff about board decisions were “made in good faith” and based on his understanding of facts.
“Differences in interpretation or perception should not be conflated with intentional misconduct or an effort to divide,” Sendelbach wrote.
Claims of insubordination or refusal to perform work assignments
The board claimed that Sendelbach was evasive when they asked him to provide requested financial information, adding that he also made it impossible for the board to get information directly from LFRA’s finance director.
Sendelbach said that without specific examples the allegation was difficult to address, but stated that some form of financial information was presented at nearly every board meeting and that a financial report is consistently also provided to directors. He also stated that he sent an email to the LFRA and rural board about managing workflows out of an effort to prevent LFRA staff from being pulled in multiple directions by board members. His intent was not to obstruct access, but to field requests to ensure appropriate prioritization, Sendelbach wrote in his response.
The board also claimed that Sendelbach never provided a line-item budget, but in his response, he claimed that the only request of a line-item budget was made Jan. 21 by City Council member Andrea Samson, who also serves on the LFRA board. Sendelbach said a budget as requested was provided the following day.
He also stated that although City Manager Thompson has referenced his practice of requesting line-item budgets from city departments, he couldn’t recall a time LFRA was specifically requested to do so.
“At no point did I withhold a line-item budget, obscure financial information, or take any action that would prevent the board from having a complete picture of LFRA finances,” Sendelbach stated.
In the notice, the board recalled an instance where Sendelbach requested additional funding to hire 13 positions in 2024, but the board claimed the fire chief hired only seven and diverted the rest of the funds.
However, Sendelbach claimed that the use of the funds for the 13 positions was addressed and approved during LFRA and rural board meetings.
“As such, the actions now characterized as unauthorized were expressly reviewed and approved by both Boards in October 2025,” Sendelbach wrote in his response.
The board also stated that Sendelbach initially represented the Health and Wellness Center as a $650,000 cost, but the board claims it has now reached over $1 million, adding that its concern is that the additional expenses created by contracting out-of-state provider Front Line Mobile Health negates the benefits.
Sendelbach clarified that although the project has exceeded $1 million, LFRA’s actual contributions were significantly reduced with a $500,000 federal appropriation and $250,000 in medical and screening equipment from their partnership with Front Line Mobile Health, according to his response. Sendelbach added that Front Line is an in-state provider that serves more than 40 departments in Colorado.
He also acknowledged that Front Line was a sponsor of an event where he was a panelist, but denied that his relationship with the company had any involvement in why they were chosen to partner with LFRA. In his response, he stated that the organization was chosen based on proposals from Front Line and Colorado State University submitted to a multi-agency committee.
Claims of lying about a job-related matter and deliberate omission of information
Sendelbach stated that without specific examples, he couldn’t refute the board’s claim that information he provided was later deemed to be inaccurate because of contradictory credible information.
“Fairness and constructive dialogue depend on the ability to examine specific facts and sources,” Sendelbach wrote. “If the Board believes particular statements were inaccurate, identifying the specific instance and the information relied upon would allow for a thoughtful, fact-based discussion and appropriate clarification.”
The board claimed that Sendelbach incorrectly stated in July how many members had departed from LFRA, but Sendelbach said that he had failed to remember an additional staff departure. He added that if Swanty had asked in an official capacity, and not during an informal discussion in Sendelbach’s office, that he would have reviewed the facts before sharing the number.
Sendelbach also stated that he never told staff the board said it would lay off employees and that there would be no raises, adding that he’s tried to be as transparent as possible with staff, which included conversations about what would happen when the funding for the 13 positions lapses.
“The underlying challenge — and the source of much frustration for all parties — is the lack of financial predictability inherent in the current funding model,” Sendelbach wrote. “Year over year, I do not have certainty regarding available resources, which makes long-term planning, staffing assurances, and compensation discussions inherently difficult.”
Sendelbach acknowledged the missed debt payment that cost the agency an additional $7,000, adding that once the problem was discovered, it was rectified by dismissing the responsible employee and informing Swanty.
Claims of conduct detrimental to customer service and operations
The notice also claimed that monetary discussions with the chief almost always turn “ugly” and create division between Sendelbach and related boards, or the boards against the city, despite the fact that the most recent changes to LFRA’s funding model were made during his tenure.
Sendelbach claimed that fiscal tensions predate his appointment and that his intent isn’t to sow division, according to his response.
Sendelbach claimed that in his first formal meeting with city finance staff, a former employee’s comments showed disapproval of LFRA spending and budget requests. Sendelbach further claimed that the same employee engaged in an “emotional and confrontational outburst in early 2022. Within the same time frame, city staff suggested that the 80-20 city-rural funding model be reviewed by an independent third party because of the contentious topic, according to Sendelbach’s response.
Sendelbach noted other instances in 2024 and 2025 where Swanty also expressed frustrations with city staff regarding monetary conversations.
Claims of threatening, insulting or abusive language while on duty
The board claimed that Sendelbach created a toxic working environment with city peers and the board, to the point where board members feel discouraged from asking questions, and on one occasion a board member left the room because they believed the fire chief had an aggressively defensive tenor.
Sendelbach acknowledged that there have been times where he has been passionate, and even assertive, with the board, adding that he understands how his intensity could be perceived as aggression. He also said that board members have welcomed his advocacy when it has aligned with certain perspectives and outcomes, but that the same passion is viewed as aggression when they don’t align.
He wrote that he is unaware of the incident where the board member left the room and the board did not provide the name of the member or date that the incident may have occurred.
“Had this occurred, I believe it would have been appropriate — and constructive — for the concern to have been raised with me at the time or shortly thereafter so that it could be addressed directly,” Sendelbach wrote in his response.
Claims of behavior or actions that disrupt operations in the authority
The board claimed Sendelbach deliberately put up road blocks in transferring records after the rural district decided to no longer use LFRA for administrative matters. Sendelbach said that a delay was caused by confusion when the notice ending the administrative relationship between LFRA and the rural board didn’t arrive by mail, but was remedied when an electronic version was delivered.
Sendelbach said he disagreed with the characterization that his actions were meant to delay or complicate the transfer of records, but instead were to ensure the entities were complying with legal requirements, according to his response.
Sendelbach also wrote that the board incorrectly claimed that LFRA missed a rural board insurance payment, adding that LFRA was never contracted to make payments on behalf of the rural district.
The board said its trust has been broken
Throughout his response, Sendelbach repeatedly stated that without evidence for the board’s claims, many are generalized characterizations that risk being subjective interpretations. He also stated that some were so broad that they couldn’t be fairly evaluated or rebutted.
“I do not claim to be without fault,” Sendelbach wrote in his response. “I readily accept responsibility for any mistakes that can be substantiated by facts and evidence, and I have consistently demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge missteps, reflect on feedback, and adjust my approach when concerns are clearly identified.”
He went on to say that he believes accountability is mutual; governing bodies applying consistent standards, fact-finding, and knowing the difference between conduct and perception-based grievances.
He claimed that the board was missing context for his podcast interview where he agreed with the lesson that leadership is about “pissing people off at a rate they can absorb,” and explained in his response that he believes leadership requires the courage to make uncomfortable decisions.
“Visionary leadership is rarely frictionless, but it is essential for progress,” Sendelbach wrote in his response.
After Sendelbach’s meeting with the board Tuesday morning, the board will have five days to issue a written response.
© 2026 Loveland Reporter-Herald, Colo.
Visit www.reporterherald.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
