Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Supplement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sutherlin URA adopts supplemental budget to cover unexpected loan interest

Sutherlin Urban Renewal Agency · December 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Sutherlin Urban Renewal Agency unanimously approved Resolution UR2025.05 to add a supplemental adjustment to the FY 2025–26 budget after staff reported an unbilled interest payment resulting from conflicting bank paperwork; staff said funds are available and no further action is required.

The Sutherlin Urban Renewal Agency voted unanimously to adopt Resolution UR2025.05, a supplemental budget adjustment for fiscal year 2025–26, to cover an unanticipated interest payment on an existing loan.

Tammy Trowbridge, the agency’s finance director, told the board the supplemental budget request arose after the bank and agency paperwork contained conflicting dates that resulted in an interest charge that was not invoiced earlier. "There was an interest payment due on the loan as of June 1, which I did not get invoiced for," Trowbridge said, explaining auditors and staff determined the payment could be made from current-year funds and was not foreseeable when the original budget was prepared. She described the request as an internal paperwork issue with the bank and said the funds are sufficient to cover the payment.

A board member moved to adopt the resolution and the Chair seconded the motion. The Clerk called the vote and all members present voted in favor; the motion carried. The agency’s action implements the adjustment described in Resolution UR2025.05 and requires no additional follow-up other than inclusion in the revised fiscal-year budget documents.

The supplemental budget was introduced during a public hearing and discussed on the record before the vote. No substantive public testimony was presented during the hearing. The agency’s finance director also emphasized this was an administrative correction tied to bank invoicing rather than a new policy or program change.