The Knox City Council continued discussions on an ordinance Tuesday night that would abolish Knox City Court.
During the discussion, Knox City Court Judge Charles Hasnerl said he had a discussion with Starke Circuit Court Judge Kim Hall. He said from that conversation he is requesting the council table the second reading so the county, City of Knox and Knox City Court could have an opportunity to meet and find a solution.
Knox Mayor Dennis Estok mentioned the City of Knox spends $145,000-$150,000 a year to operate the City Court. He added the City of Knox is providing all of Starke County with a second court and believes that it should not be up to the City of Knox’s taxpayers to pay for it. He added the county has been made aware of the council’s intention and never received a response from them.
Judge Hasnerl stated he was not disputing that information and is prepared to talk about that with both the city and county to hopefully find a solution. He said he came to the meeting to respectfully ask the council to table the second reading in hopes that meeting can occur.
Judge Hasnerl went on to say, “If the county doesn’t respond, shame on them. Move forward with the vote. What’s going to take place within the next two weeks or whenever the next council meeting is, table it and vote on it then, I understand. I’m as frustrated as anybody that the county isn’t here if it’s going to be such a dramatic affect to them. I agree, where are they? Where are the commissioners? Where are the council members? Again, no one has communicated with me that this is dire. I have communicated with the judge, I have communicated with the clerk. They are concerned. They are absolutely concerned but they don’t control those purse strings like the county council does. Again, shame on them, I can’t answer for them.”
Council member Don Kring said he would like to see if the county wants to meet. He went on to make a motion to table the second reading in hopes to have a meeting scheduled between now and the city council’s next meeting.
The motion was seconded and voted on unanimously to table the second reading of the ordinance.
