03-26-12 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

D. Case law su orts Home Rule so long as there is no conflict. The Home Rule Act is very broad, with few powers expressly withheld. The Indiana Courts have been consistent in its interpretation of Home Rule, as seen in their language. For example: See 4:05-CV-0086 SEB-WGH 2006 Kentuckiana Medical Center v. Clark Coun : Enacted in 1980,the Indiana Home Rule Act abrogated the traditional rule that local government powers were limited only those expressly granted by state statute. City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Telephone, 732 N.E.2d 149, 153 (Ind. 2000); Ind.Code 36-1-3-4(a). The Home Rule Act grants county governments "all powers granted it by statute"and"all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute." Ind. Code 36-3-1- 4(b)(1) and(2). The Home Rule Act further directs that: "Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a [county] shall be resolved in favor of its existence."Ind. Code_36-1-3-3(b). These broad grants of power to local governments were intended to further the state's policy of"grant[ing] [counties] all the powers that they need for the effective operation of government as to local affairs." Ind. Code 36-1-3-2. Despite this broad grant of authority,the Home Rule Act nonetheless imposes two limits important to a resolution of this case. First, the Home Rule Act mandates: "if there is a constitutional or statutory provision requiring a specific manner for exercising a power, a [county] wanting to exercise the power must do so in that manner." Ind. Code 36-1-3-6(a). Second, the Home Rule Act specifically withholds from local governments "(t)he power to regulate the conduct that is regulated by a state agency, except as expressly granted by statute."Ind. Code 36- 1-3-8(a)(7). The Home Rule Act defines the term"regulate"to include licensing, inspecting, or prohibiting. Ind. Code 36-1-2-15. However, even in the categories regulated by state agencies, a local government still may"impose additional, reasonable regulation, and...supplement burdens imposed by non-penal state law provided the additional burdens are logically consistent with the statutory purpose;: Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. Newton County, 802 N.E.430, 433 (Ind. 2004) [hereinafter"DNR"] (quoting Hobble ex rel Hobble v. Basham 575 N.E.2d 693, 697(Ind. App. 1991)). "An impermissible conflict with state law will be found if the Ordinance seeks to prohibit that which a statute expressly permits."DNR 802 N.E.2d at 433 (internal quotation omitted). See 801 N.E.2d 1222• Ci of Gaa v. Smith & Wesson Cor : The trial court found Indiana Code sections 36-1-3-1 through 9, commonly referred to as the Home Rule Act, to deny the City the authority to sue. The Home Rule Act grants local governing bodies "all the powers that they need for the effective operation of government as to local affairs." I.C. 36-1-3-2. The Act 8