Request By:
Mr. Gary M. Smith, Attorney
Department for Finance and Administration
Capitol Annex Building
Frankfort, KY 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Thomas C. Jacobs, Deputy Attorney General
On June 8, 1978, Governor Carroll made a speech at the County Judge Executives' Annual Conference. During the question and answer session which followed, he was asked whether or not the state would be responsible for the payment of dieting fees for juveniles detained in a county jail.
Subsequent to the above stated conference, there have been numerous inquiries from local official concerning this matter. It has been the practice of your County Fee Systems to reject those claims for the keeping and dieting of juveniles being detained in adult facilities for "delinquency", "status", or "dependency" actions as defined in Chapter 208 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Under your practice dieting fees would be paid by the state for a juvenile charged with a traffic offense and any felony or misdemeanor in which the juvenile loses his right to be tried as a juvenile or the district court waives its exclusive juvenile jurisdiction. In view of the special nature of those actions involving juveniles, your question is this: Does the fiscal court or the state have the responsibility for paying the keeping and dieting fees under KRS 64.150?
Under KRS 64.150(2) the " unit of government whose law, statute, ordinance, or code a prisoner is charged with or convicted of violating shall be responsible for paying to the jailer the fees provided in subsection (1) of this section." (Emphasis added)
In construing the enactment of a legislative body, there is a prima facia preference in favor of the literal meaning of the words of a statute, and the general rule requires adherance to the letter thereof. 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes, § 208. This general rule is followed in Kentucky as evidenced by many cases, among which are: City of Covington v. Cincinnati, C. & R. Ry Co., Ky. 139 S.W. 854 (1911), 144 Ky. 646; Grimes v. Central Life Ins. Co., Ky. 356 S.W.2d 247 (1961); Thompson v. Bracken County, 294 S.W.2d 943 (1956); and City of Covington v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 279 S.W.2d 746 (1955). While KRS Chapter 208, which governs the disposition of matters relating to juveniles in general, employs various euphemistic terms in its attempt to avoid classifying the juvenile offender as a criminal, it nonetheless remains an undisputed fact that the legislative body whose actions gave rise to the juvenile become incarcerated in most instances is the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This being the case, KRS 64.150(2) dictates that the Commonwealth of Kentucky be responsible for the dieting fees occasioned by the detention of the juvenile.
It has been suggested that KRS 208.130, which provides generally that the fiscal court of each county provide a suitable facility or facilities for the custody and care of children held pending disposition of their cases by juvenile courts, encompasses therein an obligation on the fiscal court to pay the dieting fees. We disagree. KRS 208.130 is directed purely at the maintenance of the physical facilities at which juveniles may be detained. KRS 64.150 concerns itself with the specific issue of dieting fees and we believe that the plain meaning of the words employed therein dictate that, in those instances where the juvenile is detained by reason of his transgression of a statute enacted by the General Assembly of Kentucky, the State is the party responsible for paying the jailer the fees provided in subsection (1) thereof.
We trust that this satisfactorily answers the questions raised in your letter.