In a 3-2 vote on Monday, the Select Board approved spending $105K to provide the Southborough Police Department with a drone (and bundled technology and support) for 5 years.
The majority of the board prioritized getting the tech into the SPD’s hands quicker. The dissenters had prioritized potential savings ($30K or greater) and following the board’s preferred financial process that allows Town Meeting to weigh in on how taxes should be spent.
In a meeting with the Capital Improvement & Planning Committee last week, Police Chief Newell assured that the drone won’t employ “controversial” technology for facial recognition or reading license plates.
In meetings with CIPC and the Select Board, Newell described the purpose for the drone as improving safety by increasing the speed for searches and resulting rescues or arrests. The drone acts as a “force multiplier” for the “smaller department”. And it’s infrared capabilities are helpful at night, in the woods, etc.
But, Newell also pitched the use for aiding the Southborough Fire Department in the case of a house fire. In that instance, the drone would be able to show the SFD hot spots in the home.
The drone comes with a parachute for extra safety when flying over people. The 5 year contract will also include cloud storage, evidence upload, warranties, software upgrades, and a hardware refresh (with a replacement drone in 2½ years). Newell said that the training for drone use can be covered by the department’s FY27 training budget.
While I’m sharing this news, I’m throwing in news about a recent, interesting, equipment donation to the SPD. Scroll to the bottom for news about their “undercover vehicle”.
Debate over purchase expediency vs. improved process & potential savings
Select Board Chair Kathy Cook and Vice Chair Andrew Pfaff opposed setting the precedent of allowing departments to bypass the regular budget process with Town Meeting voters by using under-utilized salary budgets to purchase equipment.
The other three Select Board members also worried about the precedent and process. But they sided with Chief Newell in getting the equipment to his department sooner for public safety.
During the discussion, Cook highlighted that the Town was in the process of pursuing a $30K earmark for a police drone in the state’s budget for FY27. Town Administrator Mark Purple confirmed that if that is approved, it can not be applied to a previously incurred expense.
If the state funding comes through after the contract for the outdoor drone is purchased, it could be applied to buying an “indoor drone”. (But there was no discussion about the importance/value/expense of an indoor drone.)
Cook shared the good news that Fay School approved paying $20K to help with the drone purchase. But in follow up discussion, it appeared that the school may have been willing to put that money towards another, pre-existing expense.
The chair apparently spoke with a member of Fay School’s Finance & Operations team. Diane Byrne asked her if there was anything the Town would like Fay to put $20K towards. Cook suggested the drone. Byrne agreed.
Cook also asked Fay to spend another $20K towards the drone in FY27, but she hasn’t heard back yet.
Pfaff asked Newell and the rep from the contractor (Axon) about a prior draft contract that had included a free indoor drone. He got confirmation that if the Town had a bigger contract that included extending the tasers and body cameras, the indoor drone would have been thrown in for free. For Pfaff and Cook that was more reason to pause on the purchase and take a deeper look at how to approach the purchase.
They were outvoted by members Sam Stivers, Andrew Dennington, and Tim Fling. Their comments focused on expediting approving the purchase for safety concerns. They may have been swayed by arguments that Newell made in the public meetings. But it also appeared that their decisions were based (at least partially) on details they learned outside of public meetings and the meeting packets.
The drone “need” and planned use
Newell told the Select Board that relying on drones from other Towns adds significant delay to their ability to begin using the drone in a search. He described a range of search needs from missing children and seniors to potentially dangerous fugitive suspects. He also described the possibility of an OUI suspect running after a crash and bleeding out while trying to evade police.
One recent incident he described was a child that had run from a car. He said it was an hour search before the drone was on the scene to aid the officers. They then found him hiding in a cemetery.
He also described an incident where a suspect was fleeing in the woods and they weren’t able to get a drone on scene in time before the suspect “ended up on someone’s doorstep.”
There were other incidents when relying on outside departments adds about 30 minutes, versus the envisioned, potentially 4 minutes if a Southborough officer responds with the drone.
Newell also warned that if they rely on neighboring towns’ equipment, they risk having the drone pulled from the search before it is completed, if an emergency occurs in the partnering town.
During the CIPC meeting, the chief stated there were nine instances that the dept had to make use of drones from other departments. I followed up to learn more. Because of privacy concerns for parties involved, he didn’t forward the details to me that were emailed to CIPC members. But he did provide me with general descriptions of the incidents, which he specified were just since May 2025:
- Search for domestic violence suspect in wooded area
- Missing child search (located by Westborough Drone Unit)
- Missing person search in woods surrounding Pine Hill Road for a person suffering from a mental health crisis
- Missing student search (did not get off at bus stop)
- Ashland PD searching for a suspect in woods near town line
- Underage drinking party investigation with juveniles fleeing into woods and one requesting help from a nearby homeowner
- Missing juvenile in woods suffering mental health crisis
- Missing kayaker at Crystal Pond
- Search for driver in woods who fled from Officers on a traffic stop
Request background
During the budget season in January, Newell listed the drone purchase as a capital expense need. But at the time, he was pausing that request to wait for a legal determination by the federal government as to whether public safety agencies could use foreign manufactured drones. Therefore, he didn’t bring the request to Annual Town Meeting this spring.
Since then, he learned that he’ll needed to purchase a U.S. made drone, adding to the expense. However, since his salary budget wasn’t tapped out (due to vacancies earlier in the year), he asked to use the excess FY26 funds to purchase the drone contract. That required signing the contract by June 30th.
Newell stressed that even after approving all of his “bottom line spending” requests, the SPD would be turning back close to six figures of the FY26 budget.
At their June 16th meeting, the majority of the Select Board decided that they wouldn’t authorize shifting the salary line item to cover that cost unless the CIPC first recommended the purchase.
They did authorize the other spending Newell requested to use the excess salary budget to cover. That included cruiser maintenance, door repairs, and purchasing replacements for (previously approved but now expiring) equipment including AED batteries, first aid bags, Ballistic helmets and plates (for protection in incidents involving “heavy weaponry”).
But, since the drone was a new expense, and more expensive than when CIPC first reviewed it, Cook opined that approving that spend without CIPC’s evaluation would be stepping on the committee.
In hopes of getting the purchase approved quickly, rather than waiting for the October 17th Special Town Meeting, the Chief worked with the CIPC to get their recommendation in time for the Select Board to reconvene on the issue one day prior to the close of the fiscal year.
Undercover vehicle courtesy of Ted’s
On June 16th, the Select Board accepted the donation of a vehicle from Ted’s of Fayville “for use by the Police Department’s Detective Bureau”.
This isn’t Miami Vice, so the detectives won’t be cruising around in a luxury sports car. It appears to be on the other end of the spectrum, valued at just “$1,385”. (Since the purpose of it is to be incognito, I didn’t reach out to learn if it is a car or pickup truck — which is why I’ll keep referring to the “vehicle”.)
A letter from the SPD explains the value of having the modest vehicle available for use by detectives:
This generous donation. . . will enhance the Department’s investigative capabilities by providing our detectives with a dedicated vehicle for surveillance, witness interviews, evidence gathering, and other sensitive assignments. The ability to operate in a vehicle that does not readily identify officers as law enforcement allows detectives to blend into everyday traffic, reducing the likelihood of detection and helping preserve the integrity and effectiveness of ongoing investigations. In many cases, the success of an investigation depends on detectives being able to observe and document activities without drawing attention to their presence.
If you’re worried that a vehicle that unexpensive will inevitably require repairs. . . Fortunately, Ted’s towing business is perfectly suited to deal with it if it unexpectedly dies:
Ted’s Auto Body has also generously offered to dispose of the vehicle at no cost, if the vehicle requires high repair costs or is no longer useful to the Police Department.
