WARWICK — The city has notified the municipal crossing guards union of a possible nonrenewal of its contract, Finance Director Ernest Zmylinski confirmed last night.

Mayor Scott Avedisian sent a letter informing the union of the news prior to the March 1 deadline, Zmylinski said. He could provide few additional details about the status of negotiations between the city and the union, referring such questions to the personnel director.

Had the city not notified the union of possibly nonrenewal of its contract, the previous agreement with the city’s 23 crossing guards would have automatically extended for another year.

Last night’s confirmation, during a City Council meeting, ends the relative secrecy surrounding the matter. Within the deadline upon him last month, Mayor Scott Avedisian had refused to discuss the issue with reporters, saying “when there is a decision, it will be announced in due time.”

“Now at least we know,” said council member Steve Merolla. “I just think it’s good, open government. The citizens had a right to know and the council had a right to know.”

The nonrenewal notice does not mean the municipal crossing guards will be replaced with private ones. Rather, it opens the door for one of two outcomes: either the city will negotiate a new contract with the guards — as opposed to letting the old contract roll over for another year—or it will solicit bids from companies interested in the job.

Last month, council member Robert A. Cushman pitched the idea of hiring a private contractor to provide cheaper crossing guard services, as Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey did several years ago in that city.

NESCTC Security Agency, the company running Cranston’s crossing guard program, has estimated that it could save Warwick about $500,000 over a three-year period if the city privatized the services.

Learning of the nonrenewal letter last night, Cushman said he’d now like to see the city solicit bids.

Even if Warwick ultimately decides to keep the municipal crossing guards, Cushman said, notifying the union of a possible nonrenewal puts the city in a better bargaining position.

“To be honest, I think it will give the administration the leverage to negotiate a better deal,” Cushman said.

Leaders of the bargaining unit for the crossing guards, Local 1033 of the Laborers’ Internal Union of North America, could not be reached for comment last night.

Warwick’s latest, three-year crossing-guard contract expired in June 2006, but because the city did not negotiate a new contract or notify the union of nonrenewal, that agreement was extended for an additional year. The previous contract cost the city about $1.6 million over three years, but it also cut back the crossing guard force from 28 to 23 and required that future hirees pay 10 percent of their health insurance premiums.

Prior to sending that nonrenewal letter, the mayor had argued in favor of keeping the municipal guards, saying city employees are easier to monitor and make a better security presence at schools. He has also questioned the extent of the much-discussed savings, noting that what the city might save in salaries for private guards, it could lose in unemployment payments for the municipal guards.

cneedham@projo.com