Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flood Control District approves consent agenda, including operating budget amendments
Summary
The Cochise County Flood Control District board on Jan. 20 approved its consent agenda, which included demands and budget amendments for operating expenses, on a voice vote after no public comment; the meeting then adjourned to the jail district session.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cochise County Flood Control District board met Jan. 20 in the Supervisor Hearing Room and approved its consent agenda, which included demands and budget amendments for operating expenses.
The meeting opened with an announcement of the agenda and a reminder that presentation materials displayed at the board may differ from attached documents. The presiding speaker noted that some members were attending in person and others via Microsoft Teams. The board allowed for public comment but said it may limit remarks during discussion of agenda items; no members of the public registered to speak.
Mr. Kaufman moved to approve the single consent agenda, and Mr. Sherman seconded the motion. The consent docket included demands and budget amendments for operating transfers and operating expenses for the Flood Control District. The presiding speaker called for those in favor to say "aye," and three affirmative responses were recorded. The presiding speaker announced that the motion carried.
After the vote, the presiding speaker said the next meeting would be the jail district meeting and adjourned the Flood Control District session.
The transcript records attendance and absences during roll call: Mr. Jeremy Cosby (District 1) and Mr. Anthony were noted as present; Gomez and Mr. Mattis were noted as absent; Agent Morris (District 3) was indicated present earlier in the roll call. The transcript contains a line reading "Motion carries 2 0 over 1 longer," which is unclear; the board's announced result immediately following three recorded "aye" responses was that the motion carried.
No statutes, ordinances, resolutions, or other legal authorities were cited during the discussion of the consent agenda. No public testimony was given on the consent items.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

