Grapevine approves $19,000 annual payment for regional SWAT team

The Grapevine City Council voted to approve a $19,000 annual payment to the City of Bedford to support the regional SWAT team shared by Grapevine, Bedford, Euless and Hurst.

Grapevine's police chief told the council the SWAT team—formed in October 2012—covers about 72 square miles and serves roughly 196,000 people across the four participating cities. The chief said each city makes an annual equal payment and that Grapevine's $19,000 share for the current fiscal year is available through the department's crime control and prevention district funds.

The chief described the team's structure as one commander, three assistant commanders, eight operators (officers) per city, and four negotiators from each city. He said the team trains extensively (about 16 hours monthly plus an annual weeklong training) on tactics and firearms, and sometimes brings in state and federal instructors. The chief listed 2024 statistics including about 20 callouts (the five‑year average is roughly 13), five special events, eight hazardous warrants and four barricaded persons. He said the $19,000 contribution primarily covers uniforms, training costs, ammunition, range supplies, ballistic protective gear, communications gear and medical equipment.

Councilmembers asked whether $19,000 is adequate and whether the team has ever lacked equipment during a response. The chief said the contribution was increased from $15,000 to $19,000 one or two years ago and that the annual payment covers consumables; pricier capital items require the four cities to reach an agreement. He also described growing use of robotic and drone technology to reduce risk to officers and gave approximate cost figures: about $12,000 for a robot and roughly $5,000 to $10,000+ for drones depending on interior or exterior capability. The chief said the team is also evaluating needs for an armored rescue vehicle, a negotiations vehicle and an equipment vehicle and may return to council with proposals developed in coordination with the other cities.

A councilmember moved approval, another seconded, and the motion carried on a voice vote. The meeting record shows no roll‑call vote or individual council votes were recorded during the motion.