David, J.
In this dispute about the ownership of a criminal justice center, we hold that the turn-over provision in the lease between the county and the building authority is valid and enforceable. Thus, we affirm the trial court.
….
At issue is whether the Turn-Over Provision in the lease is valid. The County argues that it is, and the City argues it is not. The disagreement hinges on whether the Turn-Over Provision is consistent with Indiana Code section 36-9-13 et seq. as the lease states that:
[the Building Authority] was organized for the purpose of constructing and erecting the City County Building and leasing the same to [the County] under the provisions of the Indiana Code 36-9-13. All provisions herein contained shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of said Chapter, and to the extent of inconsistencies, if any, between the covenants and agreements in this Lease and provisions of said Chapter, the provisions of said Chapter shall be deemed to be controlling and binding upon [the Building Authority] and [the County].
Appellant’s App. Vol. III at 18.
….
The Court of Appeals majority found that Indiana Code section 36-9-13- 22(a)(6) and Indiana Code section 36-1-11-8 are in “irreconcilable conflict” and further, that the “more specific” statute, Indiana Code chapter 36-9- 13, applied. City of New Albany, 125 N.E.3d at 641. Judge Brown dissented, believing that the statutes were not in conflict and that the County should be able to rely upon section 36-1-11-8, a section that governs transfers specifically to governmental entities. Id. at 642 (Brown, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
We agree with Judge Brown that there is no conflict between the two statutes. While Indiana Code section 36-9-13-22 sets forth various specific powers of the board of directors of a building authority, it does not by its plain language limit a building authority’s ability to transfer property. Instead, it provides, among other things, for a building authority to receive gifts, devises or bequests of property and then once received, for the ability to dispose of that property. Ind. Code § 36-9-13-22(a)(6). There is nothing in section 22 to suggest that these are the only powers granted to a building authority or that this section provides the sole manner for disposing of property belonging to a building authority.
Indiana Code section 36-1-11-8 provides more broadly that governmental agencies, including but not limited to municipal corporations like a building authority, may transfer or exchange property. (See Ind. Code section 36-1-11-1, listing the chapter’s applicable entities for the purposes of property disposal.) The fact that there are multiple code sections that give a building authority the ability to transfer property does not, by itself, mean that that the statutes are inconsistent absent some language that indicates as much. See Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n v. Spirited Sales, LLC, 79 N.E.3d 371, 376 (Ind. 2017) (citation omitted) (“We may not add new words to a statute which are not the expressed intent of the legislature.”). Because these two statutes can operate under their own separate requirements that do not conflict, both can and should be given meaning and effect without overriding one another. Rodriguez, 129 N.E.3d at 796.
Additionally, as the County notes, the General Assembly adopted the statutes during the same legislative session. See 1981 Ind. Acts 763-819 (Ind. Code section 36-1-11-1 et seq.); 1981 Ind. Acts 2762-64 (Indiana Code section 36-9-13-22). Thus, neither statute is supplemental to, or overwritten by the other. “Statutes passed during the same legislative session should be interpreted as harmonious, so as to give effect to each.” Ware v. State, 441 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (citations omitted). Accordingly, there is no indication that the two statutes are in conflict and we will not read them as such when they both can stand independent of one another.
Conclusion
Because the Turn-Over Provision in the lease is valid, we affirm the trial court. Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.