Argyle approves interlocal agreement with Belmont 2 to fund dedicated officer for Harvest commercial area

Argyle's Town Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve Resolution 2025‑07, authorizing an interlocal cooperation agreement with Belmont Freshwater Supply District No. 2 to provide law‑enforcement protection for the commercial portion of the Harvest development.

The agreement establishes one dedicated, fully loaded officer to cover the Harvest commercial area. Under the contract language explained at the meeting, Belmont 2 will pay 35% of the full cost of that officer until the grocery store anchor (identified in the presentation as Tom Thumb) opens; once the grocery store is operating, Belmont 2’s share rises to 50%.

Why it matters: the council and police chief said the commercial area is already generating regular calls for service and that a formal cost‑sharing agreement will compensate Argyle for patrols it already provides under mutual‑aid arrangements. Council members debated whether the initial 35% split was adequate or whether the town should insist on 50% immediately; proponents of 35% said call volumes today do not justify paying the full cost until the grocery store — projected as the primary call driver — is on site.

Chief Jackson, Argyle’s chief of police, told the council that “we are averaging anywhere from 7 to 10 calls in that commercial area every single month as it stands now,” and presented the contract’s proposed cost shares as a way to align payment with current and expected future demand. Mitchell Baird, representing Belmont Freshwater Supply District No. 2, described the 35%/50% approach as based on Belmont 2’s view of sales‑tax concessions already in place under the site’s SPA (sales/distribution agreement).

Council discussion summarized several points of contention and context: some members said a 50/50 split fairly recognizes the revenue Belmont 2 and the town expect from the site; others said a lower initial split helps cover shortfalls in compensation the town already faces on the residential contract and reflects current activity levels. Councilmember Dr. Herman and others said the arrangement can be revisited once more activity data are available.

Key numbers and schedule presented at the meeting: the staff presentation said 35% of the fully loaded officer cost equals $42,843.50 per year; 50% equals $61,205 (the council cited the half‑cost amount). The agreement term as presented runs through April 30, 2027; staff noted the contract includes a notice/termination provision but the transcript records both “60” and “90” days during that exchange. Councilmembers also discussed a separate, ongoing sales‑tax restructuring effort (the SPA) that could change district revenues and influence future negotiations.

Votes and procedure: an initial motion to approve the resolution failed for lack of a second. After further discussion and outreach to Belmont 2 representatives, a second motion to approve Resolution 2025‑07 was made and seconded later in the meeting; the council then voted and the motion passed unanimously. The council did not record a roll‑call vote with individual member votes in the transcript; minutes will reflect the official record.

What happens next: staff said the Belmont 2 board would discuss the agreement at its March meeting (the agreement as approved by Argyle will be presented to Belmont 2). Council members and Chief Jackson said they expect to revisit the compensation split in future negotiations if call volumes or sales‑tax outcomes differ from current projections.

Ending: the approved interlocal agreement formalizes cost sharing for policing in a rapidly developing part of Argyle and sets a temporary compensation framework the council and district can revise as activity and revenues change.