Baxter County justices of the peace Tuesday night signed off on purchasing a new rock crusher for the county’s quarry.
Quorum Court members voted 10-0, with one absent, to approve a resolution supporting the purchase of the crusher, which will cost $715,000. That resolution also gave County Judge Mickey Pendergrass permission to borrow $343,000 from Arvest Bank to help cover the cost of the machinery.
The new crusher will replace an aging 2004 model that is prone to mechanical breakdowns, Pendergrass said. Despite the machinery’s advanced years, it is still expected to sell for at least $200,000 when the county puts it up for auction.
LAS CRUCES – New liquor laws are coming to New Mexico this summer. While one local vendor doesn t see itself taking advantage of a notable change allowing for home delivery, a local craft distillery sees the new law as an opportunity to expand the reach of the drinks it sells.
On March 17, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law House Bill 255, an overhaul of the state’s liquor laws. Among the sweeping changes include a new class of liquor licenses for restaurants, home delivery of alcohol and tax deductions for existing license holders. It also makes it cheaper to obtain certain licenses.
No minis, but sales before noon on Sundays: New Mexico businesses react to liquor law changes msn.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from msn.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Credit Arkansas House
An amended version of a bill that would allow healthcare providers to refuse to perform certain services on an objection of moral grounds advanced a House committee on Thursday.
The House Public Health, Welfare and Labor committee passed by a voice vote, Senate Bill 289, which allows those in the medical profession to refuse performing some medical services if they have “religious, moral or ethical” objections. This would not apply to any emergency medical services.
Critics of the legislation have labeled it as discriminatory, while supporters say it only allows for the denial of services, not the denial of treating individual people.