London council members bite back after employee suit, say budget changes are necessary
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Council argues budget cuts needed after alleged $1.5M annual garbage overcharges.
- Judge paused ordinances after employees alleged retaliation and public-safety harm.
- Council plans cuts reducing staff from 137 to about 102, citing fiscal emergency.
Just days after a judge halted new ordinances affecting London’s city budget and pay scale — a move that would cut jobs — council members defended the changes as necessary to prevent the city from balancing the budget using overcollected garbage fees.
Eighty-six city employees filed a lawsuit Dec. 30 against the London City Council, its six members and the city, alleging the ordinances approved by the council will cause irreparable damage and are retaliatory in nature. The council passed the ordinances earlier that day at a special-called meeting, then unanimously overrode Mayor Randall Weddle’s vetoes.
The ordinances were set to go in effect this week, but the special judge assigned to the case, 11th Judicial Circuit Chief Circuit Judge Samuel Spalding, approved a restraining order preventing the council from implementing them. Spalding determined the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence in the complaint to suggest the ordinances are retaliatory and public safety in London would be adversely affected.
Weddle has previously said the ordinances will result in 51 jobs being cut, including deep losses to the police, fire, IT and public works departments. The lawsuit says 72 city positions could be eliminated.
But in court documents filed Friday, city council members said they believe only 35 jobs will be lost.
Friday, attorneys representing the council asked for Spalding’s order to be immediately dissolved and for the employees’ request for temporary injunctive relief to be denied. The council claims the city is facing a fiscal emergency and the budget changes are necessary.
The restraining order will remain in effect until a hearing Monday, Jan. 5 at the Laurel County Judicial Center, and the council is scheduled to meet later that day at the London Community Center.
Council members provide explanation for ordinances
The budgetary changes are related to a lawsuit filed against the city regarding overcharged garbage fees, court documents filed on behalf of the council state. That lawsuit claims the city’s past two budgets have established more than $1.5 million per year in trash pickup overcharges to fund other parts of the city.
London could owe more than $10.8 million in clawback money for overcollected garbage fees from the last five years, according to court documents. It was this prospect that led council members to review the city’s financial state and make budget changes.
Council members Kelly Greene, Jim Baker and Donna Gail House were tasked with crafting the pay scale ordinance, while Justin Young and Judd Weaver wrote the budget. Weaver wrote in an affidavit the first thing he and Young did was remove any appropriations from garbage funding that wasn’t sanitation-department related, which included $1.4 million in general government funds, more than $1.1 million in police salaries and more than $1.1 million from the street department.
The council believes the changes will reduce the number of city employees from approximately 137 to 102. House wrote in an affidavit she knew employees would be affected by the changes, but did not target specific employees or departments.
“Our objectives were simple: determine what staffing we needed to operate the relative departments, at a level that would continue an acceptable level of service to the citizens of London, knowing that we needed to implement cuts to deal with the garbage fund issue,” House wrote in the affidavit.
In a statement posted online, the council said the mayor’s math is incorrect.
“Do not be a victim of gaslighting,” the council said in its statement. “We appreciate the huge out pour of support from the silent majority. We hear your concerns about providing public support and we understand.”
Weaver wrote in his affidavit he recognizes the budget “austere,” but described it as a work in progress. He said the council will be willing to amend it, if necessary. He also wrote that he is aware of a budget proposal submitted by Weddle, but said it asks for more than $1 million in garbage funds to be used for administrative fees.
“He has refused to explain where or how that was calculated, and it appears that is simply a continuation of the practice of spending garbage funds on general government expenditures,” Weaver wrote in the affidavit. “That does not correct the problem — it compounds it.”
Weddle and some residents have criticized a specific subsection in the budget ordinance that prevents the establishment of basic life support and advanced life support services from the city fire department. Anyone who violates the subsections could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a maximum $500 fine, the ordinance reads.
Weaver wrote in his affidavit the council is concerned the city cannot afford basic and advanced life support, so the council refused to fund it.
“If the mayor or fire department wishes to provide us the requested business plan, and our analysis of that plan reveals that the provision of these additional services is fiscally sound, we are willing to remove this restriction,” Weaver said.
City leaders have argued over the ordinances since the beginning of December. The feud is the latest development in an ongoing clash between Weddle and the council, which tried to impeach him in September. The Kentucky Supreme Court most recently ruled there would be no irreparable harm from keeping the mayor in office as the council’s efforts to remove him continue.
This story was originally published January 4, 2026 at 7:00 AM.
