Sheriff’s Office SWAT leaders presented a detailed list of equipment shortfalls and a budget request to county commissioners during the FY2026 budget workshop, describing expired ballistic protection, incompatible communications gear and shortages in less‑lethal munitions and training ammunition. Lieutenant Schafer (Sheriff’s Office) and other SWAT staff asked the court to consider a $50,000 county contribution this year to start replacing critical items; their full equipment list totaled about $200,001.25 as presented.

Lieutenant Schafer told the court that some ballistic helmets and plates in use exceed a five‑year warranty window and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently advised the department that one of the contractors used for helmets had supplied equipment that was manufactured outside the advertised specifications. “Ballistic items are only warrantied for 5 years,” Lieutenant Schafer said, and older plates or helmets may not provide advertised protection.

SWAT leaders described practical problems with current masks and communications: filters for the masks cannot be kept attached while the mask is in the pouch, slowing donning in a tactical entry; legacy gas masks lack voice amplifiers; and older headset kits are worn, incompatible with newer county radios and difficult to use with gas masks and helmets. They recommended replacing tactical radios/headsets with in‑ear systems that integrate noise cancellation and remote push‑to‑talk capability to protect hearing and preserve communications when firearms are discharged.

The SWAT presentation listed many equipment needs and shortfalls, including (items and counts as reported): rifle‑rated body armor and helmets past warranty; tactical gas masks (m‑50 style); noise‑cancelling tactical headsets and in‑ear comms; weapon‑mounted lights and standardized holsters; individual first‑aid kits (6 of 15 team members currently equipped); outfitting for rifles and five additional rifles; additional less‑lethal launchers and rounds (40mm), reloads and diversionary devices (flashbangs) and replenishment of expiring CS grenades. Staff said they currently had three 40mm long‑range less lethal launchers, one less‑lethal full‑gauge shotgun, four legacy X26 Tasers (with scarce replacement batteries/cartridges) and two non‑expired CS grenades (plus older expired munitions).

On training and sustainment, the team asked for a running stock of diversionary device reloads (they requested a target of ~50 reloads because procurement lead times can approach six months) and requested training ammunition to allow each SWAT operator to shoot roughly 100 rounds per month to maintain proficiency. The presentation included a best‑practice checklist mapped to a national tactical standard and color‑coded items the department has (green), partially has (yellow) or lacks (red).

Captain Cruz and other sheriff’s staff said the team is part‑time and routinely draws officers from patrol and other duties, so equipment redundancy is necessary to ensure gear is on scene even when individual operators are off‑duty. The SWAT leaders said they would pursue grants to reduce county costs and that the sheriff’s office has grant writers working to close the gap if the court can provide an initial investment.

Why it matters: SWAT teams respond to high‑risk situations (hostage/barricade/rescue and active‑shooter incidents). SWAT presenters framed the request as a matter of officer and public safety and asked the court to prioritize replacement of expired ballistic protections and communications, replenish less‑lethal munitions and fund training ammunition.

No formal appropriation or vote was taken during the workshop; presenters said they would work with the sheriff’s office and grant staff on possible external funding sources and return with refined requests.